Yes, I'm aware that the FBI accessed the phone in the end. And in the same day. But that doesn't somehow render this article useless or need to be taken down. It is still 100% relevant. And to be clear, just because they accessed the phone doesn't mean it won't be a talking point or bargaining chip later. "We had to resort to alternative means to access the potential assassin's phone, Apple should give us a more direct approach."
So no, we won't be taking this down or issuing a correction. It was relevant when it was posted, and it remains relevant even now. The future is uncertain, but history shows that the FBI will attempt an attach on encryption at any point. Maybe not now when more important matters are at hand, but soon enough.
Thanks to the forum members for keeping it civil. This thread could have gone much worse.
America needs gun control, not encryption hacks or backdoors.
"Gun control" is not the same as "banning guns," which is perhaps what you were suggesting. You see, based on reports I have seen, the gun was legally purchased by the shooter's father. Therefore, "waiting periods" and similar "gun CONTROL" measures would not have prevented the recent assassinated attempt. The kid used his dad's gun. And yet, to ban guns and reclaim them would require a repeal of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Americans have long been in staunch opposition to that, which is why people only talk about gun "control." But again, that only goes so far, and doesn't do much to control "illegal" guns readily available on the "street."
But getting back on topic...
As I said in my earlier post, the phone seems to have been hacked or otherwise accessed by the FBI. I've not read about the FBI complaining about Apple and the lack of back doors, so I guess they either found a backdoor or used the dead body to access the phone. In any case, I don't see this as a renewed call for Apple to create back doors. As long as the FBI finds its own way in, they seem to be content with that.
Far, far from "all Americans" agree with your binary "either all guns are grabbed by the gummint or do only the most minimal firearms regulation that the most extreme elements of the NRA base will tolerate" reduction of the firearms debate.
Recent developments at the Extreme Court have proven that firearms in fact do not safeguard Americans' rights under the Constitution.
Australia has had mass shootings in 2002 (2), 2005 (2), 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014 (2), 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 (2), and 2022 (2).
America has that many in a week, to be fair
10 days (7th of July). Include the whole of July as you much 2 decades in Australia in terms of deadliness and injurys.
It is actually pretty easy to get a Gun License in Australia. It takes more training to get a car, plane or boat license. Fishing license is easier and you don't always need them.
...the Extreme Court have proven that firearms in fact do not safeguard Americans' rights under the Constitution.
You put "all Americans" in quotes like that. For the sake of crystal clarity, I never said that, nor did anything I wrote in my previous post even suggest "all Americans." If anything, I suggested that a sufficient number of Americans keep the status quo the status quo.
You also revealed your political leanings by casting the Supreme Court in a negative light by labeling it "Extreme," which of course won't convince anyone across the ideological aisle.
But all this is irrelevant, as such talk has zero impact on the article which focuses on whether the FBI and law enforcement in general will possibly use this case as a talking point in the future to strong-arm Apple and other tech firms to capitulate and add those back doors. I for one do not support those back doors.
Comments
Thanks to the forum members for keeping it civil. This thread could have gone much worse.
It is actually pretty easy to get a Gun License in Australia. It takes more training to get a car, plane or boat license. Fishing license is easier and you don't always need them.
You also revealed your political leanings by casting the Supreme Court in a negative light by labeling it "Extreme," which of course won't convince anyone across the ideological aisle.
But all this is irrelevant, as such talk has zero impact on the article which focuses on whether the FBI and law enforcement in general will possibly use this case as a talking point in the future to strong-arm Apple and other tech firms to capitulate and add those back doors. I for one do not support those back doors.