Interesting conundrum

[Skip]

They (the gubment) aren't asking Apple to "break" their encryption in the traditional sense (e.g. decryption). They are asking Apple to make it easier to brute-force by not auto-destroying after a given number of invalid attempts. e.g. send the phone a special 'software-update' that changes the phones behavior. This is doable by Apple, but would require an amount of effort that I don't think the gubment understands or cares to understand. Its akin to asking MS to re-do a special version of Windows. Could MS do it, yes. Is there a lot of effort involved in the development and testing of such a thing - more than most people who have never seen the soup being made actually realize.

The encryption that Apple uses is sound, and I do not believe that it has been backdoored by Apple. Therefore I don't believe Apple can 'decrypt' your phone on a whim. Could there be flaws in the cryptosystem that an attacker, or the gubment, could use to exploit the system? Always.

So this is more about a permanent "back door" then the exceptional need to decrypt the terrorist's device? That is reason enough to oppose it. The Fourth Amendment is blanket protection that can only be violated with due process (exception) and we shouldn't be willing to give that up because TERRORISM!!!

It's interesting how gov overreach has turned this (and other things) into a boolean decision. Thinking of an example in meatspace where a lock company designs a file cabinet/lock that in impenetrable and a terrorist buys it. It's hard not to think of ways the company could satisfy the exceptional need (gov interest) to open that lock while maintaining the integrity of their product/privacy of other customers who have done nothing wrong.

[snip]

And more importantly, for anyone that is thinking of voting for Trump:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...hooter-n522031

I think Trump just lost a lot of support, particularly from Independents and Libertarians.