This is the core of my point though: by fighting this on the all writs act, you leave the govt no option but to request something that does not compel Apple to do anything: give up the master keys. If that's what you want, fine.
Re: 2
well, a democratically elected judge did. There is literally no other democratic way to figure out if a search warrant should be granted or not. I grant you that if this was your main point (which it clearly isn't) then you might have a case, as I've not looked into that part at all.
Re: 3
Either you did not read my comment carefully, or you misunderstand fundamentally what I mean by restricted: I mean restricted in terms of how much power Apple would grant to the govt. Clearly giving the master keys would be much less restricted in terms of how much power this gives the FBI than what they are currently asking. Let's be honest, this is not about comping a half dozen engineers time for a week or two.
Re: what you think the govt should do:
Honestly your argument here is weaker than anything else in your comment. So you honestly think that the way in which the government should perform their duties in terms of law enforcement is to "educate people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security"?
Really? Okay, let's play this out: I am a terrorist, and am apprehended at JFK with my iPhone. On my iPhone, there is the contact details of my co-conspirators, already in the US and already with AK-47s ready to shoot up a primary school. Tell me exactly how "educating people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security" would be helpful in this case?
No, the government can acknowledge that it cannot compel Apple to do anything. This is in violation of all four points of the All Writs Act. It's really not even close. This is such a strange situation to try to shove into this legal framework.
Re: 2
Even if the search warrant was properly issued, the All Writs act cannot be used to expand jurisdiction to an area where the Federal Government doesn't already have it. The matter of security features on a private phone made by an entity who is not a party in this case is a rock-solid example.
Re: 3
I, and Apple, and most legal scholars who have looked at this case do not believe this order to be particularly restricted. We are talking about forcing a company to rethink a crucial engineering decision on a complex piece of equipment and dedicate engineering effort to rewrite software in such a way that is completely at odds with the needs of the customer.
Your argument is basically akin to saying, "well, they aren't saying they're going to personally kill Apple employees who don't comply, so this is actually a very moderate request."
Re: what the government needs to do if it wants to stay relevant:
You are mistaken if you think that these wild hypotheticals are the way that we make law. Nobody cares about the bizarre narrative of a kidnapper at an airport; case law is made exclusively on the basis of actual case or controversy.
In the scenario you describe, you will sadly probably succeed at an act of horrific violence; I am not moved by your suggestion that the government will be able to stop this action even if the All Writs act did apply in this situation. This is the (relatively small) price of freedom. We live in a country where one is more likely to be killed by a falling vending machine than a terrorist act, but neither is a good enough reason to completely rethink the basis of our legal system.
Of course the US govt can compel Apple to do things that are within the law. If your side wins on your narrow All Writs argument; bully for you. Stand by for the big guns.
Re: 2
So your rock solid argument is what: that I am secure from govt intrusion if I buy a Samsung as the software was made by Google? Hm..
Re: 3
Now you're talking either from ignorance or hyperbole: ain't all that hard to have them take the specific phone into a safe room with custom cloned hardware, bypass the check and unlock it. Don't see how this fundamentally changes thinking on any crucial aspect of their engineering.
(Ignoring comment about equivalency as it makes no sense, but feel free to elaborate)
Re: govt needs to do...
So there is nothing you want to contribute in a conversation about how we balance this dilemma? You don't see there ever being a case for the govt wanting access to the contents of a phone, even with a court order? What about a house or a car? If my house has a key, with a crypto seal on it, and it blows the whole house up if you pick it for more than 10 minutes, that's okay? Nobody should be compelled to help the govt get in?
> I am a terrorist, and am apprehended at JFK with my iPhone. On my iPhone, there is the contact details of my co-conspirators, already in the US and already with AK-47s ready to shoot up a primary school.
Maybe you watched too much 24, but that's just not how these scenarios have played out. You're making the same mistake people make when they imagine hacking being like they show it in the movies: if the good guy can just type fast enough, he can get around the bad guy's defenses, blah, blah, blah. But that's not how it's done, is it? Which makes this a strawman argument.
My point is not a strawman argument - if it was so, then you'd have to prove that nobody is arguing that the govt accessing the information on terrorists phones would be helpful in countering terrorism. The case in point proves this not to be so.
Also, your condescending tone does not help your argument, does it?
This is the core of my point though: by fighting this on the all writs act, you leave the govt no option but to request something that does not compel Apple to do anything: give up the master keys. If that's what you want, fine.
Re: 2
well, a democratically elected judge did. There is literally no other democratic way to figure out if a search warrant should be granted or not. I grant you that if this was your main point (which it clearly isn't) then you might have a case, as I've not looked into that part at all.
Re: 3
Either you did not read my comment carefully, or you misunderstand fundamentally what I mean by restricted: I mean restricted in terms of how much power Apple would grant to the govt. Clearly giving the master keys would be much less restricted in terms of how much power this gives the FBI than what they are currently asking. Let's be honest, this is not about comping a half dozen engineers time for a week or two.
Re: what you think the govt should do:
Honestly your argument here is weaker than anything else in your comment. So you honestly think that the way in which the government should perform their duties in terms of law enforcement is to "educate people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security"? Really? Okay, let's play this out: I am a terrorist, and am apprehended at JFK with my iPhone. On my iPhone, there is the contact details of my co-conspirators, already in the US and already with AK-47s ready to shoot up a primary school. Tell me exactly how "educating people about encryption, encourage them to protect their own security" would be helpful in this case?