Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua G
the phone is owned by san bernadino county, california. the terrorist never owned it.
privacy is an essential element of society. So is law enforcement. We are not in a dictatorship, we are a nation of laws with a court system that is a check on the cops. if a judge agrees the cops need a persons data for good public cause, how does anyone argue that the govt should not work to get around all security features.
i think those defending apple are falsely accusing the government of requiring master keys to all encryption. thats not the facts here. everyone can keep their data erase feature, until you commit a crime.
or is this entire issue an academic one about the government going nazi & ransacking your private data? does china forbid apple from encrypting phones or disable the auto-erase?
this whole thing sounds to me like more liberal hand wringing over nothing.  |
A judge has already ordered it to be opened. So the law of the land is being held up.
Quote:
But since the death of Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik in a hail of bullets last December, Farook??s iPhone has become the battleground for one of the most important fights in tech policy, and, for its manufacturer, potentially one of the most costly.
Technology may hold the key to this horrific case, the feds believe. In the request to the court to force Apple??s assistance, attorneys for the government write: ??[T]he FBI has discovered, for example, that on December 2, 2015, at approximately 11:14 a.m. [15 minutes after opening fire], a post on a Facebook page associated with Malik stated, ??We pledge allegiance to khalifa bu bkr al bhaghdadi al quraishi,?? referring to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.?
What more might Malik have known, and is it locked in her husband??s phone?
|
It was used by a terrorist. It may have more information on it.
The privacy case here is clear. If a judge orders something to be opened for inspection, it gets opened. Whether it's a car trunk, house or
phone. The right of privacy is no longer in force after a judge decides.
The problem here is some think "online privacy" is above offline privacy.