Interesting conundrum

[TFOGGER]

Does the FBI and the USDOJ have the authority to do this?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...hooter-for-fbi

Apple ordered to decrypt iPhone of San Bernardino shooter for FBI


Court says manufacturer must supply software to break encryption on Syed Farook’s phone so it can be accessed without wiping his data








Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook in airport surveillance footage. Photograph: Uncredited/APDanny Yadron in San Francisco

@dannyyadron

Tuesday 16 February 2016 21.38 ESTLast modified on Tuesday 16 February 201621.51 EST

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Share on Pinterest
  
• Share on LinkedIn
  
• Share on Google+
  

Save for later


A US federal magistrate has ordered Apple to help the Federal Bureau of Investigation unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters.

FBI appeals for help to fill in 18 missing minutes of San Bernardino timeline




Read more



The order is the most high-profile case yet of the federal government trying to figure out how to use existing law to get around stronger encryption being used in consumers’ phones. It is likely to add more fire to an already heated debate between Silicon Valley and Washington DC about the balance between national security and electronic privacy.
In this case, FBI director James Comey has said his agents have been locked out of one of the shooter’s phones as they search for evidence about the mass shootings in December 2015.
Investigators are still trying to determine to what extent the shooters were influenced by radical Islamic terrorist groups and who they had been in touch with before the rampage.




In 2014, Apple began making iPhones with additional encryption software that they said they couldn’t unlock, even if faced with a court order. Apple said this was done in the name of consumer privacy and cybersecurity, but the company has been locked in a public feud with the FBI since.

Who among us thinks that the information that MIGHT be gleaned from the terrorists phones justifies this potentially far reaching court order?

[Lars]

I feel that once you take part in a terrorist act then you forfeit all rights and any and all means should be available, however we all know that the government will then use this as a precedent to do the same thing on other less high profile crimes. It's a sticky can of worms to open up.

[Irving]

I feel that once you take part in a terrorist act then you forfeit all rights and any and all means should be available, however we all know that the government will then use this as a precedent to do the same thing on other less high profile crimes. It's a sticky can of worms to open up.

Apple hasn't committed any terrorist acts though.

[Lars]

Apple hasn't committed any terrorist acts though.

I wasn't saying that Apple committed terrost acts. My point was that the owner of the phone committed the terrorists acts and therefore should no longer have the right to privacy. If the info contained in that phone leads to an accomplice or plans for another attack then the feds should be able to act on that. But like I said, that leads to a slippery slope of what cases that they will use this as a precedent for in the future.

[Irving]

I wasn't saying that Apple committed terrost acts. My point was that the owner of the phone committed the terrorists acts and therefore should no longer have the right to privacy. If the info contained in that phone leads to an accomplice or plans for another attack then the feds should be able to act on that. But like I said, that leads to a slippery slope of what cases that they will use this as a precedent for in the future.

My point was that Apple has not lost the right to not have a back door into the phone.

[asmo]

I feel that once you take part in a terrorist act then you forfeit all rights and any and all means should be available, however we all know that the government will then use this as a precedent to do the same thing on other less high profile crimes. It's a sticky can of worms to open up.

Yeah.. Screw that "innocent until proven guilty" thing.. That only matters for people you know, right?

[kidicarus13]

Yeah.. Screw that "innocent until proven guilty" thing.. That only matters for people you know, right?

Because we definitely know the shooter didn't kill innocent people.

[asmo]

Because we definitely know the shooter didn't kill innocent people.

Doesn't matter.

[theGinsue]

Does the FBI and the USDOJ have the authority to do this?

According to the judge they do which is more proof that it's critical who gets elected into judgeships or who gets elected into offices that appoint judges.

[cstone]

The FBI and DOJ are not doing this. They applied for a court order and a US Federal Magistrate issued the order. At this point, Apple can comply, appeal the order to the circuit court, or explain how they are not technicaly able to comply.

This is pretty normal. It is actually pretty good publicity for Apple as it is a public acknowldgement that all of the federal resources available are not able to crack this phone.

Who owns the phone? If the owner is no longer alive, they have a diminished expectation of privacy. Evidence on the phone may provide leads on other known associates and conspirators involved in terrorist activity. Wouldn't you at least expect your government to pursue the evidence?