Interesting conundrum

[HoneyBadger]

I don't buy that for a second. They can't use the information without revealing that they can decrypt the phone. Getting permission allows the information to come forward while letting iPhone owners assume that their information is still secure.

This is very plausible.

[TFOGGER]

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?

I would expect the investigators to pursue all avenues to recover the data that are readily available. My concern is that they chose to apply for a court order to compel Apple to break an encryption technology that they(Apple) have previously stated was unbreakable, in essence to destroy or diminish the perceived value of one of their products. If they are successful in cracking the encryption, then it loses much of it's value in the marketplace, as well as casting doubts on their original claims of security, possibly opening them up to litigation from previous customers. The smart thing for them to do would be to fail, regardless of the possible value of the information on the phone.

[y4m4]

My understanding is that Apple has previously made public that they are not able to decrypt their own security. It will be interesting to see where this goes and what response they give to this.

This right here. This is the key to this. Here's a link confirming this: http://www.macworld.com/article/2999...t-matters.html

The government (on all sides) is slowly attacking encryption behind the guise of anti-terrorism efforts. This is just the erosion of free speech.

Look at recent stories of college students getting expelled over "microaggressions" (hurting peoples feelings) over anonymous messaging services. (No relevant links because I'm lazy.)

States are trying to pass laws to penalize phone manufacturers for selling devices that do not have back doors: http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-i...d-smartphones/

[th3w01f]

My understanding is that they're asking Apple to disable the failed attempt phone wipe, not decrypt the phone. Then they can brute force the code pretty quickly.

Sounds like the phone was owned by the employer and they were terrorists so I don't have much of a problem with it. If it's possible I'd rather see Apple make the change, rather than give the .gov the tools to do it.

[Great-Kazoo]

The real question is.

If the Feebs were able to unlock the phone. Would any of this have been made public?

Would anyone have been the wiser for it, until after the investigation OR an unnamed source in the federal investigation, said anything?

[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?

[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.

[Martinjmpr]

The court order is essentially a search warrant for the phone. So from a legal standpoint, certainly they have the authority to do it. It's no different than a search warrant to search their property or their car or bank account information.

Is someone going to argue that they don't have probable cause?

The thornier question is whether Congress can pass a law that requires devices to have a "back door" to any encryption. From a strictly Constitutional standpoint I don't see why not but it would be interesting to see what would happen if they tried - I don't think it would go well for the government for a number of reasons.

[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.

[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.