9 ms·

Why is it important that the FBI can access that person’s phone?

djsumdog 7y ago
I'm wondering this too. The person already killed a bunch of people. The person is dead. What more to they hope to gain? Some secret cell of others? Unlikely .. and if there is, why not regular warrants, wiretaps, e-mail searches, etc. They already have sooo many tools they can use, both with a warrant and bypassing it via FISA. They had all this domestic spying stuff and still couldn't prevent the shooting! They get nothing with phone access, so why even bother brining up compromising everyone else's security just because they failed to use all their current surveillance means to detect and prevent the shooting to being with?! You want more access? Why? That's fucking unbelievable.
- mikejb 7y ago
  Probably to understand motive, and check for potential involvement of others. And whilst they have a metric shit-ton of spying capabilities on US civilians, those are not really intended to avoid crime. (Maybe the shift of perception of what is terrorism might change that, though)
  - kennywinker 7y ago
    He posted a manifesto online. Think his motive was pretty clearly outlined in it.
    - stordoff 7y ago
      So far as I can tell, the Dayton shooter didn't leave a manifesto: > The Dayton shooter left no manifesto. https://www.vox.com/2019/8/7/20758473/trump-invasion-el-paso-shooting-sanders-warren-dayton https://www.vox.com/2019/8/7/20758473/trump-invasion-el-paso...
    - ethanwillis 7y ago
      Did he? I thought that was the El Paso shooter.
    - iamnotacrook 7y ago
      You're thinking of mass shooting 2019/247, not mass shooting 2019/248. (Yes, we're up to more than one a day on average now) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...
      - gmueckl 7y ago
        I have no words that let me express my opinion of politicians that are willing to let this go on in a way that doesn't blatantly violate the rules of this site.
      - janOsch 7y ago
        This list gives me shivers...is the USA a scary, uncivilized country?
        FakeComments 7y ago
        Yes. The Democrat’s policy of de-policing for crimes committed by blacks has made some areas in the USA significantly less safe. The vast majority of those shootings are incidents between or involving gang members, predominantly black. Notice how often Chicago, IL makes that list? Chicago alone is twenty incidents — which isn’t surprising, considering its reputation for gang crime. But a single city accounting for nearly 10% of mass shootings is a culture problem in that city — not a general problem with firearms or nationwide violence.
        rayiner 7y ago
        Yes, and it always has been. The murder rate per capita in the US has consistently been 5-10x higher than in Europe for the entire 20th century. Long before gun control, social safety nets, the drug war, or any other difference you might want to blame. The US is a low cohesion, high violence society.
        djsumdog 7y ago
        As someone who grew up in the US, lived in the EU, Australia and NZ for a number of years, I can say on a day to day basis, it's still pretty much nothing. The average American rarely ever has to directly confront violence. I've even spent years in major metropolitan areas and the majority of people don't walk around each day anticipating violence. My sister got mugged once, in our small home city, like 20 years ago. I've never personally been mugged or assaulted, but I did have one break in while in NZ (they took all my electronics) and I had a bicycle stolen in Australia. I haven't lived in "bad parts of town" through (although friends told me I lived in a bad part of town in two places I lived in; but I really feel they were exaggerating) and in high crime areas I'm sure it's different. But the portrayal the rest of the world sees of America is through a very limited lens. And German or Irish or Chinese person who comes to visit the US will see kids playing in parks, people in the cities walking to work or lunch, others browsing through stores or pumping petrol into their cars and it will generally looks pretty much like every other part of the mid/high income industrialized world.
    - naasking 7y ago
      > He posted a manifesto online A manifesto isn't necessarily honest. It describes how shooters want the world to view their actions, not necessarily the actual motives behind their actions.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- stordoff 7y ago
  I largely agree that they likely gain little from accessing the phone (though they may further understand motive/sources of radicalisation from what he was looking at before the shooting), but it would seem negligent not to check if they have access to it. It doesn't seem to warrant spending significant resources finding a way into it, though (unless they have reason to suspect the involvement of a third-party), or justify calling for a backdoor.
- mtgx 7y ago
  Yes, but somehow the government believes that not having access to the phone's data is much more dangerous! What a load of BS. If anything, it's all the mass surveillance they do that should have prevented him from shooting people up. But of course it doesn't work like that because mass surveillance = real time noise. Mass surveillance, if anything, can be useful only after the fact, because you already know the crime has been committed, it's no longer an algorithm predicting a "chance" of something happened, multiplied by millions of people, giving you thousands of false positives at any moment in time. But the issue is, this after the fact thing is also what makes it much easier to abuse, as the government can just target anyone they feel might upset them at any point in the future, since they already have everyone's data.
Animats 7y ago
Yes. They got the guy. There's not much question about him pulling the trigger. And he's dead. What's to find out?
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Co-defendants or co-conspirators?
  - nraynaud 7y ago
    they will get them by the computer and by the websites.
    - abdulmuhaimin 7y ago
      why are you so sure about that?
    - rocqua 7y ago
      There is no reason except for hard to use implementations that the computer isn't encrypted. If you're fine with phone encryption, you gotta expect the same for computers.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    Is there any real reason to believe there were any?
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      Until you follow all leads, you cannot discount them.
    - fortran77 7y ago
      His sister drove him there. For some reason she gets a pass.
      - brokenmachine 7y ago
tempguy9999 7y ago
Because saying "he's dead so this is the end of the matter" is unwise and it's worrying you're even asking this. . Were other people involved? . or other organisations such as extremists organisations? . Did he have people egging him on (even if totally uninvolved otherwise), or was he a complete loner? . Is there a hidden motive here that's not obvious? . Further evidence of stable and rational thinking, or mentally unstable? . Is it possible he was aided by legal loopholes, or some failures in process that need patching? . Could he have left any nasty surprises behind? . Does his behaviour indicate something that would allow prediction of similar crimes and perhaps their thwarting? . Photos/films of something of interest like supporters, discussions of further action, whatever In this case, once a crime is committed, all info needs to be gathered. I'm saying that as someone who is disturbed at extensions of state powers, but once there's a crime, I'm all for picking up everything and analysing it.
- NohatCoder 7y ago
  Sure it would be nice to have access to the phone, but it is just one of many pieces of evidence that may be gathered, and mostly it is redundant with other sources. If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations, unless he really knew how to hide his tracks, in which case it is unlikely that he would have left any trails on his phone either.
  - tempguy9999 7y ago
    You may be right, but I'm not convinced. > and mostly it is redundant with other sources The main means of communication other than face-to-face is telephone calls and this newfangled web with its many features. Both are provided by a modern smart phone, which most people seem to live through. Therefore you can expect most to all non-F2F comms to go through the phone (typically; not necessarily). So I can't accept what you say (yet). > If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations These being? You can move about freely in the states, and he was a domestic terrorist. > unless he really knew how to hide his tracks Agreed, but it seems most domestic terrorists are bad planners or stupid AFAICS. People like Ted Kaczynski seem to be the exception, most are idiots who will boast online or ask "how can i maek teh THTP" from google. I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me.
odiroot 7y ago
I've heard he was a supporter of some radical political groups. Maybe they're looking for a link? Co-perpetrators etc.?
- drivingmydrinks 7y ago
  Elizabeth Warren?
iamnotacrook 7y ago
They can't admit "crazy person with a gun" because they suggests that maybe fewer people should carry guns; better to find a narrative that lets then describe each one as desired: white person "angry, money problems" so change nothing; brown person "radicalised alien" , deport and toughen immigration".
checktheorder 7y ago
>Why is it important that the FBI can access that person’s phone? To establish legal precedent.

I'm wondering this too. The person already killed a bunch of people. The person is dead. What more to they hope to gain? Some secret cell of others? Unlikely .. and if there is, why not regular warrants, wiretaps, e-mail searches, etc. They already have sooo many tools they can use, both with a warrant and bypassing it via FISA. They had all this domestic spying stuff and still couldn't prevent the shooting! They get nothing with phone access, so why even bother brining up compromising everyone else's security just because they failed to use all their current surveillance means to detect and prevent the shooting to being with?! You want more access? Why? That's fucking unbelievable.

mikejb 7y ago
Probably to understand motive, and check for potential involvement of others. And whilst they have a metric shit-ton of spying capabilities on US civilians, those are not really intended to avoid crime. (Maybe the shift of perception of what is terrorism might change that, though)
- kennywinker 7y ago
  He posted a manifesto online. Think his motive was pretty clearly outlined in it.
  - stordoff 7y ago
    So far as I can tell, the Dayton shooter didn't leave a manifesto: > The Dayton shooter left no manifesto. https://www.vox.com/2019/8/7/20758473/trump-invasion-el-paso-shooting-sanders-warren-dayton https://www.vox.com/2019/8/7/20758473/trump-invasion-el-paso...
  - ethanwillis 7y ago
    Did he? I thought that was the El Paso shooter.
  - iamnotacrook 7y ago
    You're thinking of mass shooting 2019/247, not mass shooting 2019/248. (Yes, we're up to more than one a day on average now) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_th...
    - gmueckl 7y ago
      I have no words that let me express my opinion of politicians that are willing to let this go on in a way that doesn't blatantly violate the rules of this site.
    - janOsch 7y ago
      This list gives me shivers...is the USA a scary, uncivilized country?
      - FakeComments 7y ago
        Yes. The Democrat’s policy of de-policing for crimes committed by blacks has made some areas in the USA significantly less safe. The vast majority of those shootings are incidents between or involving gang members, predominantly black. Notice how often Chicago, IL makes that list? Chicago alone is twenty incidents — which isn’t surprising, considering its reputation for gang crime. But a single city accounting for nearly 10% of mass shootings is a culture problem in that city — not a general problem with firearms or nationwide violence.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        Yes, and it always has been. The murder rate per capita in the US has consistently been 5-10x higher than in Europe for the entire 20th century. Long before gun control, social safety nets, the drug war, or any other difference you might want to blame. The US is a low cohesion, high violence society.
        djsumdog 7y ago
        As someone who grew up in the US, lived in the EU, Australia and NZ for a number of years, I can say on a day to day basis, it's still pretty much nothing. The average American rarely ever has to directly confront violence. I've even spent years in major metropolitan areas and the majority of people don't walk around each day anticipating violence. My sister got mugged once, in our small home city, like 20 years ago. I've never personally been mugged or assaulted, but I did have one break in while in NZ (they took all my electronics) and I had a bicycle stolen in Australia. I haven't lived in "bad parts of town" through (although friends told me I lived in a bad part of town in two places I lived in; but I really feel they were exaggerating) and in high crime areas I'm sure it's different. But the portrayal the rest of the world sees of America is through a very limited lens. And German or Irish or Chinese person who comes to visit the US will see kids playing in parks, people in the cities walking to work or lunch, others browsing through stores or pumping petrol into their cars and it will generally looks pretty much like every other part of the mid/high income industrialized world.
  - naasking 7y ago
    > He posted a manifesto online A manifesto isn't necessarily honest. It describes how shooters want the world to view their actions, not necessarily the actual motives behind their actions.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
stordoff 7y ago
I largely agree that they likely gain little from accessing the phone (though they may further understand motive/sources of radicalisation from what he was looking at before the shooting), but it would seem negligent not to check if they have access to it. It doesn't seem to warrant spending significant resources finding a way into it, though (unless they have reason to suspect the involvement of a third-party), or justify calling for a backdoor.
mtgx 7y ago
Yes, but somehow the government believes that not having access to the phone's data is much more dangerous! What a load of BS. If anything, it's all the mass surveillance they do that should have prevented him from shooting people up. But of course it doesn't work like that because mass surveillance = real time noise. Mass surveillance, if anything, can be useful only after the fact, because you already know the crime has been committed, it's no longer an algorithm predicting a "chance" of something happened, multiplied by millions of people, giving you thousands of false positives at any moment in time. But the issue is, this after the fact thing is also what makes it much easier to abuse, as the government can just target anyone they feel might upset them at any point in the future, since they already have everyone's data.

Animats 7y ago

Yes. They got the guy. There's not much question about him pulling the trigger. And he's dead. What's to find out?

Fjolsvith 7y ago
Co-defendants or co-conspirators?
- nraynaud 7y ago
  they will get them by the computer and by the websites.
  - abdulmuhaimin 7y ago
    why are you so sure about that?
  - rocqua 7y ago
    There is no reason except for hard to use implementations that the computer isn't encrypted. If you're fine with phone encryption, you gotta expect the same for computers.
- GordonS 7y ago
  Is there any real reason to believe there were any?
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    Until you follow all leads, you cannot discount them.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    His sister drove him there. For some reason she gets a pass.
    - brokenmachine 7y ago

tempguy9999 7y ago

Because saying "he's dead so this is the end of the matter" is unwise and it's worrying you're even asking this. . Were other people involved? . or other organisations such as extremists organisations? . Did he have people egging him on (even if totally uninvolved otherwise), or was he a complete loner? . Is there a hidden motive here that's not obvious? . Further evidence of stable and rational thinking, or mentally unstable? . Is it possible he was aided by legal loopholes, or some failures in process that need patching? . Could he have left any nasty surprises behind? . Does his behaviour indicate something that would allow prediction of similar crimes and perhaps their thwarting? . Photos/films of something of interest like supporters, discussions of further action, whatever In this case, once a crime is committed, all info needs to be gathered. I'm saying that as someone who is disturbed at extensions of state powers, but once there's a crime, I'm all for picking up everything and analysing it.

NohatCoder 7y ago
Sure it would be nice to have access to the phone, but it is just one of many pieces of evidence that may be gathered, and mostly it is redundant with other sources. If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations, unless he really knew how to hide his tracks, in which case it is unlikely that he would have left any trails on his phone either.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  You may be right, but I'm not convinced. > and mostly it is redundant with other sources The main means of communication other than face-to-face is telephone calls and this newfangled web with its many features. Both are provided by a modern smart phone, which most people seem to live through. Therefore you can expect most to all non-F2F comms to go through the phone (typically; not necessarily). So I can't accept what you say (yet). > If he used the phone for contacting co-terrorists there are trails in many other locations These being? You can move about freely in the states, and he was a domestic terrorist. > unless he really knew how to hide his tracks Agreed, but it seems most domestic terrorists are bad planners or stupid AFAICS. People like Ted Kaczynski seem to be the exception, most are idiots who will boast online or ask "how can i maek teh THTP" from google. I care greatly about privacy but when there is legal cause as people have died, my feelings are the law must have access. It is a balance though, and USAins may draw the line differently from brits like me.

odiroot 7y ago

I've heard he was a supporter of some radical political groups. Maybe they're looking for a link? Co-perpetrators etc.?

drivingmydrinks 7y ago
Elizabeth Warren?

iamnotacrook 7y ago

They can't admit "crazy person with a gun" because they suggests that maybe fewer people should carry guns; better to find a narrative that lets then describe each one as desired: white person "angry, money problems" so change nothing; brown person "radicalised alien" , deport and toughen immigration".

checktheorder 7y ago

>Why is it important that the FBI can access that person’s phone? To establish legal precedent.