I'm mixed on this. I'm all for privacy especially for barriers blocking a potentially invasive and abusive government but I also hate terrorists and pedophiles. Crimes committed, residences entered with a warrant, computers confiscated, hard drives searched. Unless it's an Apple product?
By all this becoming public, we have taught both of these groups that there are places that the law can't physically and legally look.
Seemingly.
I say seemingly because I find it odd that this is being thrashed out in public between a top federal law enforcement agency and a computer manufacturer. Wouldn't this discussion have been better held in private? Wouldn't the DHLS, FBI, and CIA be better off if this need and request were not being discussed and dissected in the news?
So why is this public? Why do we know these details that are being reported? It looks on purpose.
And I question a computer company that has no inside way to get into its own products. If there's a way, I do see the why a computer manufacturer would not want it to be known that there is a way. This public thing again.
So the bottom line is - if what is being reported is actually true, our enemy now knows they can keep data on a device carried in their pocket and if that device is captured, there's no way to get to it. Right?
If this were a movie, I might predict a smokescreen.
Interesting thoughts.
Regarding Apple not being able to get in to their own product - It's like a safe manufacturer that builds the worlds strongest safe, markets it as such and is successful. Let's imagine it's made of a newly crafted alloy that once molded and cooled, it becomes hundreds of thousands of times harder than diamonds. And now let's imagine the only way to access the safe is by a mechanical combination lock made of the same material, and the combination is set by the user. The FBI could secure the right to see what's inside, but let's assume the person who owned and set the safe combination died. Should the FBI be able to go back to the safe manufacturer and force them via court order to help open the safe?
Regarding criminals using these phones with impunity - does that mean that you and I cannot have such a device just because a criminal might use one? It's similar to gun control arguments whereby it's argued that no one should have the power to protect themselves with an AR15 equipped with a 30-round magazine. Great harm can be done by criminals with either a gun or a phone or both. Stripping our phones of unbreakable encryption would in effect disarm us of of our ability to keep things like political dissent, etc. from being read by the government.
Specifically regarding pedophiles, remember that the ability for a pedophile to keep the contents of their phone private is mirrored by our ability to keep corrupt law enforcement or criminals from putting child pornography on your phone in an attempt to frame you, coerce you, or hold you for ransom.
And you asked why they all didn't settle this in private? Because the NSA can already access you phone. The NSA can install malware to your device over a cellular or wireless network and access your microphone and camera; and, if your phone is turned off they can turn it on. But the FBI isn't the NSA, and they have to work through less covert channels to get information. The NSA is looking to prevent an attack, but the FBI needs legally acquired evidence to be able to prosecute and convict. And the FBI did ask Apple privately. Apple said no, so their only recourse is the court of public opinion and the legal system.
I believe the only way the FBI is going to win this is through SCOTUS or Congress passing a law that sets limits on the level of encryption available to the public. But Congress cannot limit encryption because it's essential for secure commerce.
Secure encryption is the engine that is driving our society forward, and the FBI is delusional to think they can either put the genie back in the bottle, tame the genie, or kill the genie outright.
