dani0805

cnocbui said:

bugsnw said:

I think if this was another company, people would think it prudent to help unlock phones on a court-ordered by court-ordered basis. The odds of this technology getting out are quite low. Both sides make a great case. I just lean slightly towards national security on this one. Even with an encryption key safeguarded by the govt./FBI, I would feel like my data was safe from prying eyes. We don't have all that much privacy out in the wild as it is. It's part of the give and take of rights vs. safety.

Do you even know what 'risk' is?

Being harmed through an act of terrorism is one of the least likely - therefore lowest risk - things that are likely to happen to someone living in a politically developed country.  You are about 4 times more likely to be hit by lightning in the US than be harmed through terrorism.  If it was proposed by the three letter agencies that giving them full access to all your communications and documents would allow them to reduce the chances of you being hit by lightning you would laugh - well I hope you would.

You are 33,842 times more likely to die of cancer than through terrorism, yet because the three letter agencies effectively run the country, the US government spends $500M per terrorism mortality vs $10,000 per cancer victim.  Is that sane?

Somewhere between 180,000  to 440,000 people die in the US annually from preventable medical mistakes and infections.  Maybe money would be better spent on educating people as to how low risk terrorism really is and then diverting the enormous sums spent on the war-on-terror to health care.  Even just being slightly more thorough in cleaning hospitals would have a greater beneficial impact than has ever been derived from the TSA groping people.

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/anti-terrorism-spending-disproportionate-to-threat/
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/youre-68-times-more-likely-to-be-hit-and-killed-by-lightning-than-murdered-by-a-terrorist.html

All this nonsense to retrieve a 6 week old shopping list.

iBrownguy said:

MatchesMalone said:

It's not Apple's job to protect us from "a deadly attack." They make phones and computers.  And last I checked, people in San Bernadino were killed by guns not Apple's iPhone. 

And by accessing the iPhone in question they might be stopping a future attack by those Guns. You are right that it's not Apple's job to protect us from attack. But is it right for Apple to shield the FBI from trying to stop the next one?

TooSafeIsUnsafe said:

When, not if, Apple's attitude protects a deadly attack, please remember your support of privacy over safety. Apple's attitude is misleading if not outright dishonest.