patrick.net

Strategist says

There is information on that phone that is not likely to be in that apartment.

So why do you suppose they changed the password?

And don't you think they might have overlooked information in the apartment, information that is probably gone now? If they were really interested in maximizing their information about those terrorists, they would not have changed the password and they would not have abandoned the apartment. And, besides, they had just cleared the female through background checks, declaring her safe to immigrate. They are using their own failures to increase their own power. Why do you want them to have more power over you? Are you a terrorist? Do you not trust yourself, and so you need government to search you all the time to keep you from turning Muslim and going full Aloha Snackbar?

curious2 says

So why do you suppose they changed the password?

I doubt they ever had the password. The terrorists for sure did not give it to them.

curious2 says

And don't you think they might have overlooked information in the apartment, information that is probably gone now? If they were really interested in maximizing their information about those terrorists, they would not have changed the password and they would not have abandoned the apartment. And, besides, they had just cleared the female through background checks, declaring her safe to immigrate. They are using their own failures to increase their own power. Why do you want them to have more power over you? Are you a terrorist? Do you not trust yourself, and so you need government to search you all the time to keep you from turning Muslim and going full Snackbar?

Irrelevent. The FBI wants to know who they communicated with. It's perfectly reasonable.

Strategist says

I am in the minority here on this issue so lets get straight to the point. We did not elect Apple to be in charge of our security. Who the hell are they to dictate how our national security takes shape?

If you believe in...
1. small government then government should not be able to place backdoors into the property of private citizens to spy on them.
2. states rights then the federal government should not be able to force backdoors in products. It should be up to each state.
3. free enterprise then the government should not be able to force corporations to alter their products or to stifle innovation with flaws.
4. free markets then government should not be able to force anyone to provide backdoors. It should be left to the free market to decide if companies and consumers want this.
5. property rights then government should not be able to damage your property with security holes.
6. Hilary compromised national security by using a private email server that was not hacked, then you sure as hell should be against introducing security holes that would let terrorists and hostile governments take over our infrastructure and hack into our defense systems and to blackmail high ranking politicians.

If you don't believe in any of the above, why the hell would you ever vote Republican?

Strategist says

Phones can be tapped with a warrant, surveillance tapes can be accessed, so why not a damn phone used by scumbag terrorists?

That's not what's being argued. As I stated, no one is claiming that the government should not get a warrant for the information on these individual phones, which by the way the government couldn't give a rat's ass about. What some scumbags in government are trying to do is to use this case to enable them to get access to every person's private data without warrant and without oversight by building in security holes into every major IT product. If they got that, not only could you kiss your liberty good bye, you could also kiss your ass goodbye as ISIS uses our own drones against us.

what a shame. i thought Mr. Cook would be a strong proponent of backdoor attacks.