Dave S

Are we saying that we are so paranoid that we do not trust our gov't not to do something illegal like look at other phones when they shouldn't if they have that ability?  Again, when we assume crime will occur on that level, those who put forth the argument, I suspect, have much bigger issues with the gov't than this evidentiary issue.  I work on the assumption that we have to trust the system.  If not, we lose.  Is it abused, sure.  Everything is.  We are still the best system in the world and, generally, if our gov't abuses something, we usually find out.

I can see why the gov't would have real evidentiary issues at trial if it were not able to show exactly how the info was extracted.  That said, in this instance, the gov't, as I understand it, is looking from more of an investigatory standpoint than prosecutorial.  As a result, on these facts, I would not let the gov't have any more than the info itself.  Where it was on the phone and how it was extracted would only become an issue in need of determination in the event the matter went to trial and the prosecuting attorney wanted to use some of the info as evidence showing the truth of what was asserted.  If that were the case, I truly believe Apple has this obligation even if it means some lack of overall security.

After all, we are all 90% good and it is only when we act collectively that things get scary (big companies and gov'ts).  So, the vast majority of us wont have our info stolen and, if we do, it wont be the end of our world.  On the other hand, defending ourselves from true threats of mass murder is serious.  We need to accord these men and women in our gov't the ability to do their job.  If they abuse it, shame on them.  Regardless, I would hope we get a fair and reasoned opinion that takes these things into consideration.  I appreciate the dialogue.  It has brought me a bit more toward the middle.  Regardless, I think we are overthinking this particular situation.  The judge should simply order disclosure of the contents and nothing more (certainly nothing that would threaten Apple's proprietary rights).

Urei1620 said:

@ Dave S, how much did your employer pay you to post that brilliant analysis?

I employ myself.  I don't post often and I initially suspected the FBI was likely overreaching.  I deal with them routinely in my work and I was employed with the government for a time.  It is not uncommon, in my experience, that they can be cripplingly powerful.  It can be scary if they are on your tail and many folks subject to this type of "investigation" are not clear criminals.  Rather, they operate in the financial gray area because to do so can be very lucrative.  Or, they aren't aware they are breaking a law and just can't understand why the gov't can literally shut off their life overnight (freeze accounts, arrest you and request denial of bail, seize you and your family's assets, etc...)  Again, judges need to be careful and most realize the tremendous burden they carry.

That said, I believe it is the result of judges being too friendly about finding cause to issue warrants.  Regardless, in this instance, there is no doubt the man is a killer and that the phone may contain relevant info that could prevent harm of other innocent people.  I have no clue how this can be reasonably opposed.  Leads me to wonder just how much I don't know.  Ignorance is bliss, no doubt, and I know the guys at Apple are probably doing this in good faith.  All I can say is that, from a legal perspective, they lose.  So, if Apple is right, it must be because I am ignorant with respect to some material fact that, the existence which, would swing the pendulum.