ǂǂǂǂǂ

ttollerton said:

We do need to get this figured out, but because we're having the debate after an extremely horrific event that draws out heavy emotions, the debate is unlikely to be civil and objective.  

The Constitution DOES guarantee privacy and protection from an overreaching government.  However, the Fourth Amendment allows the government to perform reasonable "search and seizure."   As we move to a digital world, we're going to have to figure out how this concept fairly applies.  

If this were a proactive debate, instead of a reactive one, it would be much easier to come to common ground.  My thought at least.  But, we're seeing a ton of polarity in the debate (thanks to politicians preying on emotions) and, as a result, there is little chance of an amicable resolution.

 I don't agree with the FBI's first pass at trying to solve the problem, but I do think they need to be able to access critical evidentiary data that could put disgusting criminals away for life, or that could save many innocent lives.  We've got to figure out how to effectively compartmentalize information to limit access when a Constitutionally-appropriate warrant is granted by the judiciary.