[exw]

<<Was hoping Gates would be less naive in thinking this legal precedent has anything to do with this specific case which has close to 0% chance of providing any real-world information and more to do with the fact that this tragedy is used as political theatre and being exploited for maximum PR and political influence.>>

Regardless of the merit of the case, I think it's pretty inappropriate that you are calling BillG naive. You really think that somehow you have more insight into the situation than BillG, who has access to pretty much any resource and source of information?

[mythz]

> Regardless of the merit of the case, I think it's pretty inappropriate that you are calling BillG naive.

Actions speak louder than words, I don't care who you are. In this case his words are adding to the dangerous narrative the US Govt wants this debate to be framed on: exploiting a tragic case of terrorism to unlock the legal precedent with 175 other phones waiting in the wings:

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/york-da-access-175-iphones-...

With the FBI having court orders out for 13 similar cases:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098616/apple-fbi-similar...

If he's not naive, he's been actively complicit as part of the "Old Microsoft" (before security of user data affected their global Azure business model) who was more than happy to provide what ever access they could to the NSA which saw "Outlook.com encryption unlocked even before official launch" and "Skype worked to enable Prism collection of video calls":

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c...

[davidw]

To play the devil's advocate, LE can get a court order to search your house, your car, your file folder, tap your phone, and so on, and that's viewed as fair by most people, since there are some checks and balances: they have to convince a judge (we're not talking about the secret NSA court stuff), and have to stick to some rules when they do it.

Why should they not be able to search phones on a case by case basis, with a court order?

That's something reasonable people are going to ask.

Edit: This is a pretty good analysis of why turning over a tool to the FBI is a terrible idea: http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=5645 - but the FBI is saying they don't want that. The guy in the blog disagrees.

Let's say they meant what they said and everything stays inside Apple. Why shouldn't a court be able to order a search?

[teacup50]

The dangerous narrative is Apple's reframing of this debate to shift attention away from the simple truth:

Apple already has a backdoor. This is DRM, not crypto.

They control these devices, top-to-bottom, regardless of the owner's actual wishes.

[ptomato]

Calling him naive is certainly more charitable than the other explanation.