Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? All Apple is saying is that it will appeal the District Court's decision . . . . it is the lowest court in the Federal Judiciary. It will take it up to the Court of Appeals and, if it loses there, petition the SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari. I have no doubt that they would comply with the final, non-appealable ruling. That's how it is supposed to work.
Personally, I like how this is playing out. I think privacy rights (which is paramount) has to be balanced sensibly with dire law enforcement needs. We all know that the FISA courts are totally rubber stamping machine. Forcing the LE to seek a Federal judge to publicly rule on breaking encryption on the merits and urgency on a case-by-case is a good compromise.
If there was a crime committed they could certainly open your safe, with or without your cooperation.
Yes, and in this case, the safe is a password locked phone. Like a safe to store valuables, the combination is there for the government intelligence to crack, to take the valuables inside.........
"They" better get right on that!
Apple is wrong on this. They have no right to intentionally hide things from law enforcement. Once the phone is purchased by someone it is their property and LE has every right to get into it for evidence especially with a court order, encryption or not. Tim Cook is just trying to keep his name in the news.
You have to admit he's in a tough situation here. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. The encryption technology was probably a selling point, but if in the end the government can force them to unlock it that selling point goes out the window.
The government may just have to do the investigation the old fashioned way.
There is only one legal way around this and that is to pass a law requiring a backdoor for all encryption sold to the public.
.
Then what would be the purpose for encryption in the first place?
If there is an unlocked backdoor, not only government would be able to get in the unlocked door.
Apple is wrong on this. They have no right to intentionally hide things from law enforcement. Once the phone is purchased by someone it is their property and LE has every right to get into it for evidence especially with a court order, encryption or not. Tim Cook is just trying to keep his name in the news.
If it's the consumer's property, then the consumer has rights to it. Why should Apple create software that would allow them to unlock other people's property? Sure, the court can demand evidence, and legally can make searches, but does that right to searching (even with a warrant) really include demanding that a company build new software that makes people's phone security weaker? I don't think so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
