3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThey 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 agoYes, 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.