02-19-2016, 08:11 PM
I supported the NSA skimming individuals' communications for data that might help them prevent a terror attack, even though I greatly dislike the privacy infringement. If any data related to crimes which were not "terror-related" was ever used to prosecute a citizen, I never heard about it and I'd think defense attorneys would shout it from the rooftops if that had occurred or they suspected that it had occurred. I expect the same limited "terror-related" scope would be applied to searching specific phone data after the fact as well.
I want LE to unlock the San Bernadino terrorist's phone so they can gather data that might prevent future terrorist attacks, of course. But, I completely understand why Apple is vehemently opposed to being ordered to make that possible. Security is part of the their competitive advantage and something their customers generally value; Apple and other technology companies have invested much and fought hard to earn back customer trust after the Snowden leaks. The OS/software they'd need to develop in order to disable the auto erase of data when the wrong password is entered more than 10 times would be usable to hack any iPhone, not just the one in question in this case (sure, they'd guard it best they could, but that's a huge responsibility/burden to bear). Plus, Apple is a private corporation, not a branch of LE/ government -- I understand why they don't want to be in a position of needing to have resources dedicated to such government activity (which I think they're right to expect would be a continuing request).
Anyway, I don't blame Apple for appealing the court order and I don't think doing so in any way means their leadership is apathetic about terrorism. I think Apple will probably lose its appeal and be forced to comply, but having fought the court order will minimize the negative impact to their brand.
The FBI and NSA are probably going to have to meet with the leaders of the technology companies and agree upon guidelines, scope and assurances regarding corporate cooperation with criminal investigations. And, this time, the details of that agreement will need to be transparent to the public instead of hidden from us. Then, it won't put any one technology company between a rock and a hard place when it is compelled to cooperate by warrant/court order.
I want LE to unlock the San Bernadino terrorist's phone so they can gather data that might prevent future terrorist attacks, of course. But, I completely understand why Apple is vehemently opposed to being ordered to make that possible. Security is part of the their competitive advantage and something their customers generally value; Apple and other technology companies have invested much and fought hard to earn back customer trust after the Snowden leaks. The OS/software they'd need to develop in order to disable the auto erase of data when the wrong password is entered more than 10 times would be usable to hack any iPhone, not just the one in question in this case (sure, they'd guard it best they could, but that's a huge responsibility/burden to bear). Plus, Apple is a private corporation, not a branch of LE/ government -- I understand why they don't want to be in a position of needing to have resources dedicated to such government activity (which I think they're right to expect would be a continuing request).
Anyway, I don't blame Apple for appealing the court order and I don't think doing so in any way means their leadership is apathetic about terrorism. I think Apple will probably lose its appeal and be forced to comply, but having fought the court order will minimize the negative impact to their brand.
The FBI and NSA are probably going to have to meet with the leaders of the technology companies and agree upon guidelines, scope and assurances regarding corporate cooperation with criminal investigations. And, this time, the details of that agreement will need to be transparent to the public instead of hidden from us. Then, it won't put any one technology company between a rock and a hard place when it is compelled to cooperate by warrant/court order.