3 ms·

No it does not. Govt never claimed this. What it does is show that, the FBI will do exactly what the Chinese are currently most likely doing if need be.

matheweis 11y ago
You are correct that they did not explicitly say this, however I do believe they - through Director James Comey's statements, strongly implied this: The San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message... We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist's passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That's it. We don't want to break anyone's encryption or set a master key loose on the land. https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-...
- teacup50 11y ago
  The precedent of "search warrants" already existed. They weren't creating it.
bediger4000 11y ago
FBI Director James Comey claimed that unlocking this phone was really really about Terrorism: "So I hope folks will remember what terrorists did to innocent Americans at a San Bernardino office gathering and why the FBI simply must do all we can under the law to investigate that." (https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-...) It's possible, by some weird John Yoo-style contorted reading of the facts to say "FBI Director Comey said that, the US Government didn't say 'because terrorism'". That contorted reasoning would amount to lying by splitting hairs. Don't lie by splitting hairs.
- einarvollset 11y ago
  I think you are confusing the arguments for granting a search warrant in this specific case (terrorism), with the overall argument behind granting the powers that a search warrant provides in general (not terrorism specific)
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    I'm sorry, I don't see how the above statements relate to John Comey's public explanations of why hacking the iPhone in question was so important. Maybe you can expand on the above to clarify that relationship?
    - einarvollset 11y ago
      Law is not made on a case by case basis. There is a general set of powers that gets granted for something like a search warrant. Just because a govt official argues that a specific case is terrorism related, does not mean that the general powers granted by a search warrant is "just cause terrorism". Instead, to have a coherent argument you have to argue against why the govt should have been given the search warrant in the first place. If you're a programmer you'll understand - you can't argue generally about a class because of the properties of an instance of that class.
      - bediger4000 11y ago
        Law is not made on a case by case basis. I see where you've gone astray: law is made on a case-by-case basis in the USA. The USA has a "common law" system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) where precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent) is overwhelmingly important. If I understand correctly, the FBI was attempting to set a precedent, using an instance that has lots of emotional appeal ("Terrorism!") and they were really working that emotional aspect ("Couldn't look the survivors in the eye") hard. Once that precedent is set, the USA's legal system would require some new laws to make the precedent go away (in a legal sense). The FBI could at the least operate under the legality of the precedent until the new law(s) take effect, if such new laws get made. They often don't, and the USA just rides on the precedent.

matheweis 11y ago

You are correct that they did not explicitly say this, however I do believe they - through Director James Comey's statements, strongly implied this: The San Bernardino litigation isn't about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message... We simply want the chance, with a search warrant, to try to guess the terrorist's passcode without the phone essentially self-destructing and without it taking a decade to guess correctly. That's it. We don't want to break anyone's encryption or set a master key loose on the land. https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-...

teacup50 11y ago
The precedent of "search warrants" already existed. They weren't creating it.

bediger4000 11y ago

FBI Director James Comey claimed that unlocking this phone was really really about Terrorism: "So I hope folks will remember what terrorists did to innocent Americans at a San Bernardino office gathering and why the FBI simply must do all we can under the law to investigate that." (https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-if-we-did-not-follow-lead https://www.lawfareblog.com/we-could-not-look-survivors-eye-...) It's possible, by some weird John Yoo-style contorted reading of the facts to say "FBI Director Comey said that, the US Government didn't say 'because terrorism'". That contorted reasoning would amount to lying by splitting hairs. Don't lie by splitting hairs.

einarvollset 11y ago
I think you are confusing the arguments for granting a search warrant in this specific case (terrorism), with the overall argument behind granting the powers that a search warrant provides in general (not terrorism specific)
- bediger4000 11y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't see how the above statements relate to John Comey's public explanations of why hacking the iPhone in question was so important. Maybe you can expand on the above to clarify that relationship?
  - einarvollset 11y ago
    Law is not made on a case by case basis. There is a general set of powers that gets granted for something like a search warrant. Just because a govt official argues that a specific case is terrorism related, does not mean that the general powers granted by a search warrant is "just cause terrorism". Instead, to have a coherent argument you have to argue against why the govt should have been given the search warrant in the first place. If you're a programmer you'll understand - you can't argue generally about a class because of the properties of an instance of that class.
    - bediger4000 11y ago
      Law is not made on a case by case basis. I see where you've gone astray: law is made on a case-by-case basis in the USA. The USA has a "common law" system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) where precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent) is overwhelmingly important. If I understand correctly, the FBI was attempting to set a precedent, using an instance that has lots of emotional appeal ("Terrorism!") and they were really working that emotional aspect ("Couldn't look the survivors in the eye") hard. Once that precedent is set, the USA's legal system would require some new laws to make the precedent go away (in a legal sense). The FBI could at the least operate under the legality of the precedent until the new law(s) take effect, if such new laws get made. They often don't, and the USA just rides on the precedent.