President Obama: 'You Cannot Take an Absolutist View' on Encryption Issue

[Mactendo]

While mostly any citizen in US can go and buy a gun and then commit a crime, it looks weird to chase after the phones.

 

[techwhiz]

http://en.yibada.com/articles/10762...o-deportation-of-chinese-student-from-u-s.htm

A student recently was pretty much forced to turn on her iPhone and after reading her messages she was deported.

Upon entering the US. You can be forced to turn on your phone and grant access as part of the procedure.
I know this. You don't have the constitution to protect you while in the immigration and customs area.

 

[duffman9000]

I'm amazed that so many of you think Obama actually has something to do with all of this. Quite laughable really. You probably also think your vote actually counts and will help decide the next presidency. The 'President' has already been chosen. You can swap Hello Kitty for Obama and she'd be spewing the same **** as he is. The president has the same job Tom Cruise has. No different!

The administration's position has changed dramatically. I don't blame one person but the whole collective lot. I don't know how much damage one person can do (executive orders not included lol).

Edit: I hope one person can't do that much damage.

 

[macintoshmac]

Quantifying the threat doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Muslim extremists aim to kill as many people as possible and must be stopped.
Are you guys saying since it happens less than the other threats that it isn't important?

No. In seeing the Muslim extremist threat, do not behave as if the local threat does not exist, and definitely do not overlook it. Both threats are equal. Do not focus on the Muslim extremists alone, also take a look sideways in the neighbourhood.
[doublepost=1457982047][/doublepost]

In general, smart phones won't become useless. They will become useless for daily commerce, and, for storing private information. They will continue to be useful as combination phone, GPS, map, and ipod, but, I doubt if anyone would pay $600-$800 for one -- you can get a pretty good generic smart phone for around $200. I can see why Apple is worried-- it has invested a huge amount of money in making iPhone security credible for daily commerce. I find it odd the way law enforcement seems to be so obsessed with smart phones. Compared to guns and cars, smart phones are toys when it comes to crime. In fact, I would have thought that law enforcement would be pushing secure smart phones, because, if no one carries significant cash any more, and people generally stop using checks, L.E. can track almost every significant transaction in real time, and, nobody will carry cash for robbers.

Minds and people who think like you do not form the government. That's the plight of every government in the world.

 

[dk001]

According to Apple, they haven't developed this "tech" yet. What's to prevent Congress or the feds from mandating exclusivity of this new tech Internationally? The U.S. already ignores certain warrants and extradition requests from some countries in which U.S. businesses do business. Some for National security reasons.

Tech as in the devices themselves. iPhones are literally everywhere. Extend this "want" to other smartphones and it is literally everywhere.
The US can try to limit the export of the "FBIOS" except other nation-states now have rights to it as this product is sold there. Now add all the potential "leak" scenarios based on this.....
[doublepost=1457982295][/doublepost]

Upon entering the US. You can be forced to turn on your phone and grant access as part of the procedure.
I know this. You don't have the constitution to protect you while in the immigration and customs area.

btw - this applies to almost any tech coming back in. And not just the US. Usually it is to ensure the device is a real device. The "dig into the info" is rare unless there is a suspected reason.

 

[nsayer]

The question we have to ask is if technologically it is possible to make an impenetrable device or system where the encryption is so strong there's no key, there's no door, at all, then how do we apprehend the child pornographer? How do we solve or disrupt a terrorist plot?

The same way we always have - with police work. The ability for people to communicate securely doesn't fundamentally alter that.

What mechanisms do we have available to even do simple things like tax enforcement if in fact you cant crack that at all. If the government can't get in, everyone is walking around with a swiss bank account in their pocket.

You [Obama] say that like it's a bad thing.

There has to be some concession to the need to get that information somehow.

Why?

Folks who are on the encryption side will argue that any key whatsoever, even if it starts off directed at one device, could end up being used on every device. That's just the nature of these systems. That is a technical question. I am not a software engineer. It is technically true, but it can be overstated.

How can you "overstate" truth? It's either true or it's not.

My conclusion so far is that you cannot take an absolutist view on this. So if your argument is strong encryption no matter what, and we can and should, in fact, create black boxes, that I think does not strike the kind of balance that we have lived with for 200, 300 years and it is fetishizing our phones above every other value. That can't be the right answer.

Again, why not? In the 1700s, people were able to use codes and ciphers to send mail that were completely indecipherable to the authorities at the time and the world didn't come off the tracks. How is it any different today?

I suspect that the answer is going to come down to how do we create a system where the encryption is as strong as possible, the key is as secure as possible, is accessible by the smallest number of people possible for a subset of issues that we agree are important.

I promise you that that "subset of issues" is the null set. It's just like the death penalty. Nobody wants it for everyone, but there's absolutely no agreement at all on whom it should be applied.

 

[firewood]

The US can try to limit the export of the "FBIOS" except other nation-states now have rights to it as this product is sold there.

Other states may claim rights regarding iOS as currently shipped, but what is the possibility that FBIOS could legally be declared something new and different and thus protectable by U.S. National Security laws from export?
[doublepost=1457983832][/doublepost]

Upon entering the US. You can be forced to turn on your phone and grant access as part of the procedure.
I know this. You don't have the constitution to protect you while in the immigration and customs area.

Paranoid types have been reported to back-up their phone and PC to the cloud, and then wiping them before traveling in and/or out of certain countries. "Sure you can see everything on my iPhone."

 

[steve333]

Well statistically americans are more likely to be killed by americans than by any other group. So if you want every american to be safe, the best method would be to lock you all up.

You ARE paranoid and you are frightened.

You are stupidly and blindly willing to allow everyones civil rights to be trod on to reduce your fear.
[doublepost=1457923923][/doublepost]

Its not just knowledge, its money and weapons that the US has supplied to these people too.

And you're aiding and abetting terrorists.
What exactly do you people have on your phones that is so personal and why are you worried about the government looking at the phone belonging to a terrorist?
Enabling them to say and do what they want with no risk of getting caught is lunacy

No. In seeing the Muslim extremist threat, do not behave as if the local threat does not exist, and definitely do not overlook it. Both threats are equal. Do not focus on the Muslim extremists alone, also take a look sideways in the neighbourhood.
[doublepost=1457982047][/doublepost]

Minds and people who think like you do not form the government. That's the plight of every government in the world.

All are important, but to ignore muslim terrorists is nuts.

 

[dk001]

Other states may claim rights regarding iOS as currently shipped, but what is the possibility that FBIOS could legally be declared something new and different and thus protectable by U.S. National Security laws from export?...

Little to none. Even if the FBIOS version is "protected" this way that in no ways stops other countries from requesting the same. There are a limited number of ways to build "UnprotectediOS". It would be in the wild quickly assuming the FBI doesn't leak it first. They have a habit of allowing that.
There are very likely legal implications involved if the US tried this route and it's use in the legal system. That would preclude it from being used by the FBI/DOJ/Judicial/Legal in many cases pretty much undercutting what they are attempting on that front.
Just MO as my level of expertise is from a military development perspective (hardware) and that is likely out of date (1990's).

 

[duffman9000]

And you're aiding and abetting terrorists.
What exactly do you people have on your phones that is so personal and why are you worried about the government looking at the phone belonging to a terrorist?
Enabling them to say and do what they want with no risk of getting caught is lunacy

We can see the FBI chomping at the bit ready to abuse whatever new power it wins. Just like the abuse of National Security Letters.

If the FBI tried to use a NSL against Apple we would probably never know. But the FBI wouldn't abuse a power that doesn't require judicial oversight right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/13/AR2008031302277.html

 

[You are the One]

And you're aiding and abetting terrorists

Your argument is that of a brainless slave to a fascistic governmental system, a slave that any day could increment a family member, a neighbour, a work colleague or anyone else of thought crime against Big Brother.

Former US anti-terror chief tears into FBI over iPhone unlocking case

 

[jettredmont]

Yes I read it. But apparently you didn’t, or if you did, you didn’t understand it. So let me explain it to you.

The quote duffman posted is made in the context of network security (2.1), not physical device security (2.2) There’s a big difference, and many folks who think like you do apparently don’t have the critical reasoning skills to see it. I’m guessing it’s the public school educations, but I digress…

Wow, I guess we've found the elitist ******* of the thread. Proceed.

The current debate, and the government’s request, have nothing to do with network security. The government is asking for access to a particular iPhone DEVICE pursuant to a legal search warrant and in compliance with Riley v. California, and asking Apple for a special OS that will disable the built-in self destruct mechanisms so that they can gather evidence about a terrorist event where 14 innocent people were killed in cold blood. They are NOT asking for any access for any kind of network access, not to anyone’s network, not Apple’s, not yours, and not mine. People who say they are are the ones spreading FUD.

Before you go on, let me be absolutely clear that there are two different proposals being discussed here. The first is what the FBI is asking, which has nothing to do with key escrow, and which I don't recall that paper dealing with at all. The second is a more theoretical request that FBI Director Comey has made complaining about their inability to infiltrate locked devices and asking for something like key escrow to allow a warrant on a specific device to be served. I'm sure you, with your superior reasoning skills and non-public education, already knew this, so I'm just making this distinction in case any uncultured rubes might be trying to follow along.

I should also note here that we are really just imagining the boundaries of what the FBI is advocating here, because they have not to my knowledge put a bounded concrete proposal on the table at all. Have you seen anything specifically ruling out network access to the devices? Maybe I'm just too unable to reason critically to understand the nuance of the point you are making.

In section 2.2, the paper states

Another alternative is to require that law enforcement ship devices back to the vendor for exceptional access decryption. However, it will still be necessary to store over long periods of time keys that can decrypt all of the sensitive data on devices. This only shifts the risks of protecting these keys to the device manufacturers.

Okay, stop right there. You just quoted the authors stating that protecting these mega-high-value keys is a new risk being required of manufacturers, which hardly seems a ringing endorsement of the idea in my uneducated mind. I also remember them saying about this that that was their conclusion too:

But regardless of how the KEK is generated, obtaining access to the plaintext requires that the device-encrypting key be encrypted under some additional key or keys. These could be manufacturer-owned keys or keys belonging to one or more law enforcement agencies. Either choice is problematic[33].

Huh. It is almost as if they knew, two paragraphs prior, that this was a fruitless path to go down. Then it seems like they revisited this in the summary and then again in the conclusion:

Designing exceptional access into today’s information services and applications will give rise to a range of critical security risks. [...]
Second, the challenge of guaranteeing access to multiple law enforcement agencies in multiple countries is enormously complex. It is likely to be prohibitively expensive and also an intractable foreign affairs problem. [...] Lawmakers should not risk the real economic, geopolitical, and strategic benefits of an open and secure Internet for law enforcement gains that are at best minor and tactical. [...] We have shown that current law enforcement demands for exceptional access would likely entail very substantial security risks, engineering costs, and collateral damage. [...] More generally, what would happen when (not if) critical secret information was revealed, such as the private keys that allow encrypted data to be read by anyone, that destroyed the privileged position of law enforcement? [...]
This report’s analysis of law enforcement demands for exceptional access to private communications and data shows that such access will open doors through which criminals and malicious nation-states can attack the very individuals law enforcement seeks to defend. The costs would be substantial, the damage to innovation severe, and the consequences to economic growth difficult to predict. The costs to developed countries’ soft power and to our moral authority would also be considerable.

If I didn't have a superior intellect like yourself telling me otherwise, I'd have thought that the paper's authors didn't really like the idea of a key escrow system. Good thing I have been corrected!

Since I clearly did not understand that the paper's authors are really major key-escrow advocates, I absolutely withdraw my earlier criticism and assertion of:

Umm, did you read the report and understand it? Yes, they described that scenario as what they were examining in section 2.2. They then spent the next ten pages discussing in detail why it would not work and why it is a horrible idea.

This is the option that the government has been advocating from the get-go. Yes, it does shift the risk. But if you are concerned about privacy, it is better for Apple to be involved in this way, and not the government. Why? Because there is no reason to think that the code Apple writes in compliance with the order will ever leave Apple’s possession. Nothing in the current court order requires Apple to provide that code to the government or to explain to the government how it works. And Apple has shown it is amply capable of protecting code that could compromise its security. It’s one of the most secretive and secure corporations on the planet. Consider that Apple currently protects (1) the source code to iOS and other core Apple software and (2) Apple’s electronic signature, which allows software to be run on Apple hardware. Those things, which the government has NOT requested, are the keys to the kingdom. If Apple can guard them, it can guard software to comply with legal court orders as well.

There are a whole lot of security professionals who absolutely disagree with you there. If I don't trust the US Government to keep something with this much value to this many nefarious organizations secure, why would I trust Apple to? This is fundamentally different from the two examples you gave, because it is much much more valueable by itself (how is it more valuable than the electronic signature? because with the electronic signature the hacker would still need to write firmware to take advantage of it, and it is significantly harder to use surreptitiously).

As importantly, if Apple is in the business of giving this access to US agencies they will necessarily be in the business of doing the same for every other nation's agencies, many of whom are not quite so progressively-minded about freedom of speech and demonstration.

So now we know where you stand. Thanks for exposing yourselves as enablers for terrorists, kidnappers, drug dealers and pedophiles.

You are quite welcome! Glad to finally find someone with the astounding intellectual capacity and top-rate education to discern my true motive of helping child molesters and terrorists, although you missed that I also kick puppies every chance I get and once took a **** on the American flag in the middle of Main Street just because I'm that kind of *******.
[doublepost=1457992285][/doublepost]

Quantifying the threat doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Muslim extremists aim to kill as many people as possible and must be stopped.
Are you guys saying since it happens less than the other threats that it isn't important?

First, you say quantity doesn't matter, then use quantitative hyperbole (as many people as possible) to make it seem more important.

Second, yes, if there are two items which have quantifiable risks with equal costs, I would do the higher-risk item first. Likewise, if there are two items with identical risks but unequal costs (in terms of basic rights), I would do the lower-cost item first. And, if the more reasonable item to attack first is untenable to address, then so should the less reasonable item be.

Now, does that mean either is not important at all? No, not saying that. I'm arguing about what freedoms we are willing to give up to achieve risk mitigation of a sort, and what additional risks we are willing to take on in the name of mitigating a single risk.

 

[sir1963nz]

And you're aiding and abetting terrorists.
What exactly do you people have on your phones that is so personal and why are you worried about the government looking at the phone belonging to a terrorist?
Enabling them to say and do what they want with no risk of getting caught is lunacy



All are important, but to ignore muslim terrorists is nuts.

My health records are on there, my banking is on there, huge swathes of my personal life are on there and the government has no right to this information. Once they have that kind of authority, they will never let it go, and it can be abused.

Martin Luther King could have been classed as a terrorist under the current paranoia.

The McCarthy years were hardly a wonderful time, think of how draconian he could have been with full access to everyones lives.

Who is next, those that vote for Trump or those who don't vote for Trump ?

Anyone arrested who wants a lawyer, thats an indication they MUST be guilty.

How about the fact that 14,000 americans are shot by americans each year, a gun database is important to stop terrorists from getting guns, and to be safe you have to let the FBI have a key to your guns so that if terrorists are suspected in your area they can swoop in, take the guns and save lives.

You are so bloody frightened you have stopped thinking and are allowing the government to do it for you.

YOU are helping the terrorists by allowing the government to destroy peoples civil liberties.
A terrorist is one who creates fear and terror in the lives of others, you are one of the victims, you have
an unreasonable fear.

 

[oplix]

Lol Obama telling people what they can and can't do.

 

[sir1963nz]

Yes I read it. But apparently you didn’t, or if you did, you didn’t understand it. So let me explain it to you.

The quote duffman posted is made in the context of network security (2.1), not physical device security (2.2) There’s a big difference, and many folks who think like you do apparently don’t have the critical reasoning skills to see it. I’m guessing it’s the public school educations, but I digress…

The current debate, and the government’s request, have nothing to do with network security. The government is asking for access to a particular iPhone DEVICE pursuant to a legal search warrant and in compliance with Riley v. California, and asking Apple for a special OS that will disable the built-in self destruct mechanisms so that they can gather evidence about a terrorist event where 14 innocent people were killed in cold blood. They are NOT asking for any access for any kind of network access, not to anyone’s network, not Apple’s, not yours, and not mine. People who say they are are the ones spreading FUD.

In section 2.2, the paper states



This is the option that the government has been advocating from the get-go. Yes, it does shift the risk. But if you are concerned about privacy, it is better for Apple to be involved in this way, and not the government. Why? Because there is no reason to think that the code Apple writes in compliance with the order will ever leave Apple’s possession. Nothing in the current court order requires Apple to provide that code to the government or to explain to the government how it works. And Apple has shown it is amply capable of protecting code that could compromise its security. It’s one of the most secretive and secure corporations on the planet. Consider that Apple currently protects (1) the source code to iOS and other core Apple software and (2) Apple’s electronic signature, which allows software to be run on Apple hardware. Those things, which the government has NOT requested, are the keys to the kingdom. If Apple can guard them, it can guard software to comply with legal court orders as well.

So now we know where you stand. Thanks for exposing yourselves as enablers for terrorists, kidnappers, drug dealers and pedophiles.

A terrorists aim is to make people scared. To make them loose quality of life through restrictions of freedoms.
YOU are enabling the terrorists, because you are scared.

But please feel free to go to your local law enforcement office and ask them to place a tracking bracelet on your leg so that they can KNOW that you have not been involved in any crimes...... after all, if you are not tracked, how can anyone know for certain.
[doublepost=1458000907][/doublepost]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fbi-threatens-to-demand-apple-s-secret-source-code-214832611.html

Right there. If Apple is saying making this tool is too much work for them, the FBI is saying they will make Apple give the source code and signing keys so that the FBI can do it themselves.

So the FBI is using Mafia tactics.... makes us a key or give us the code.

 

[steve333]

My health records are on there, my banking is on there, huge swathes of my personal life are on there and the government has no right to this information. Once they have that kind of authority, they will never let it go, and it can be abused.

Martin Luther King could have been classed as a terrorist under the current paranoia.

The McCarthy years were hardly a wonderful time, think of how draconian he could have been with full access to everyones lives.

Who is next, those that vote for Trump or those who don't vote for Trump ?

Anyone arrested who wants a lawyer, thats an indication they MUST be guilty.

How about the fact that 14,000 americans are shot by americans each year, a gun database is important to stop terrorists from getting guns, and to be safe you have to let the FBI have a key to your guns so that if terrorists are suspected in your area they can swoop in, take the guns and save lives.

You are so bloody frightened you have stopped thinking and are allowing the government to do it for you.

YOU are helping the terrorists by allowing the government to destroy peoples civil liberties.
A terrorist is one who creates fear and terror in the lives of others, you are one of the victims, you have
an unreasonable fear.

Dude, it seems like you're the one who's frightened

 

[sir1963nz]

Dude, it seems like you're the one who's frightened

No. I am not the one willing to sacrifice everyones freedom to try an quell my fears. I am standing up for peoples right to free speech, people rights no to be unreasonably searched, peoples right to freedom of association.

Hitler, Mussolini , Pol pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, McCarthy, all "leaders" who had no respect for individual rights and were paranoid that someone was out to get them. The USA is not immune, especially when you give them the means and the power to abuse peoples rights. In WW2, millions of people risked and sacrificed their lives to protect the freedoms and rights of others. You are willing to sacrifice the freedoms on millions to quell your fear and paranoia.

Watch out for those vending machines, in the last 50 years they have killed far more americans than terrorists have.

perhaps you would be more comfortable in North Korea where those freedoms are already gone.... but there have been no terrorist attacks.

 

[Mtmspa]

obama has been a great president facing hard odds and harder decisions throughout his presidency. certainly not without his major flaws -- and this right here is particularly high on that list.

Actually he is worst ever, and worse that Carter. Plays golf goes on expensive vacations with Moochie and has ruined the country in 7 years. You must live off the welfare teat.

 

[hiddenmarkov]

And you're aiding and abetting terrorists.
What exactly do you people have on your phones that is so personal and why are you worried about the government looking at the phone belonging to a terrorist?
Enabling them to say and do what they want with no risk of getting caught is lunacy



All are important, but to ignore muslim terrorists is nuts.

If the method(s) exist to access the phone it will expand. And leak. And one day not be in the hands of the "good guys".

If bored look up Diffie-Hellman, weakness, and NSA as key search terms (fill in other words if you want). I won't post links I found...you might say I wear tin foil hats (which would be correct but if the hat fits...).

basically one supposed method used by the NSA to crack diffie-hellman was found. the methods of this while laborious...are very reproducible. one guy or team figures this out, others can and will repeat that feat. Your research might show why they used this. Spoiler: its used to hack, err monitor since hack is so unpatriotic a word, VPN traffic tops hits allege.


Moral to this story: NSA did not approach Dr's Diffie or Hellman, or the VPN solution that set up that tunnel, and take them to court to rewrite their stuff. you see...if they did this for the people who do not know of this would know to not use it anymore. NSA went on the DL, paid some eggheads...and somewhere out there is someone using pure diffie-hellman that they think is secure. Nice setup really. this is what gets you your bad guys. Not having apple lose this case (if that happens) and they stop using iphones.



FBI needs to stop whining and be like the NSA and do something radical like hire the right people. And get rid of some gs12+ dead weight they have now. I cba to crack this....sue the maker Director Comey. Wth are we paying these alleged specialists for. I know what gs 12 makes. these asshats probably get a housing package as well. I know how much that is for gs 12 and higher too.

Or the POTUS/congress needs to sit the FBI and the NSA down in the same damn room and say....we are on the same team. Stop the dick size comparing ego crap right now. NSA you live for this crap, we give you budgets from hell we can't know wth you spend it on. You will help the FBI to keep that money flowing. FBI...lose the damn pride and talk with the NSA more about crap like this.

.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Actually he is worst ever, and worse that Carter. Plays golf goes on expensive vacations with Moochie and has ruined the country in 7 years. You must live off the welfare teat.

well Im making more than the vast majority people living in the US and am paying higher taxes than everyone simply because Im single and I agree with the other poster so....

I notice that most of the people complaining about welfare queens are taking government handouts themselves and pay very little in taxes. Then when it gets real they think the federal government is supposed to bail them or their state out. I'm like they are conservative for a reason. Let them put their money where their mouth is and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

 

[macfacts]

If the method(s) exist to access the phone it will expand. And leak. And one day not be in the hands of the "good guys"....

If it is possible for this backdoor to leak into bad guys hands, why is it not possible for the iOS source code to also leak to the bad guys? The iOS source code exists right now.

 

[steve333]

No. I am not the one willing to sacrifice everyones freedom to try an quell my fears. I am standing up for peoples right to free speech, people rights no to be unreasonably searched, peoples right to freedom of association.

Hitler, Mussolini , Pol pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, McCarthy, all "leaders" who had no respect for individual rights and were paranoid that someone was out to get them. The USA is not immune, especially when you give them the means and the power to abuse peoples rights. In WW2, millions of people risked and sacrificed their lives to protect the freedoms and rights of others. You are willing to sacrifice the freedoms on millions to quell your fear and paranoia.

Watch out for those vending machines, in the last 50 years they have killed far more americans than terrorists have.

perhaps you would be more comfortable in North Korea where those freedoms are already gone.... but there have been no terrorist attacks.

There has to be a way to get in through the backdoor without looking into everyone else's phones. Just require a warrant.
You're the one who is paranoid about the Government. No fan of the Feds at all but I think they should have access when needed.

 

[sir1963nz]

There has to be a way to get in through the backdoor without looking into everyone else's phones. Just require a warrant.
You're the one who is paranoid about the Government. No fan of the Feds at all but I think they should have access when needed.

Thats like saying there has to be a way to enter a full football stadium and only see the person you want.

There is only 1 version of that particular IOS, its not unique, its not tied to that phone.
The FBI will end up with the code that breaks into that version of IOS.
That will allow them to create code that will break into any phone running that version (and perhaps other versions) of IOS
It will also have set a precedent, which means Apple can be forced more easily the nest time (and there will be).

You have Donald Trump advocating war crimes, advocating nuclear weapons use, advocating torture, advocating violence against people who have different view points.

ALL the candidate are advocating the removal of your civil rights "to stop terrorism".

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

If they gain new powers, they WILL be abused. The NSA has already done it, illegal data collection, and lied about it to congress.

 

[Snoopy4]

My health records are on there, my banking is on there, huge swathes of my personal life are on there and the government has no right to this information. Once they have that kind of authority, they will never let it go, and it can be abused.

Martin Luther King could have been classed as a terrorist under the current paranoia.

The McCarthy years were hardly a wonderful time, think of how draconian he could have been with full access to everyones lives.

Who is next, those that vote for Trump or those who don't vote for Trump ?

Anyone arrested who wants a lawyer, thats an indication they MUST be guilty.

How about the fact that 14,000 americans are shot by americans each year, a gun database is important to stop terrorists from getting guns, and to be safe you have to let the FBI have a key to your guns so that if terrorists are suspected in your area they can swoop in, take the guns and save lives.

You are so bloody frightened you have stopped thinking and are allowing the government to do it for you.

YOU are helping the terrorists by allowing the government to destroy peoples civil liberties.
A terrorist is one who creates fear and terror in the lives of others, you are one of the victims, you have
an unreasonable fear.

I have about zero support for a back door on my phone for the government, but once I'm dead I couldn't care less what they know about me. There needs to be a balanced solution here where the government can access a dead terrorists phone through a warrant.

These were terrorists, not some guy walking down the street that got hit by a car. Terrorists typically know other terrorists and contact them.

 

[teslo]

I have about zero support for a back door on my phone for the government, but once I'm dead I couldn't care less what they know about me. There needs to be a balanced solution here where the government can access a dead terrorists phone through a warrant.

These were terrorists, not some guy walking down the street that got hit by a car. Terrorists typically know other terrorists and contact them.

you say you're zero against backdoors yet you want them to be able to snoop on terrorists because (on their employee supplied phone - for WORK - the phone they KNEW was being monitored), they 'probably' have ties to other terrorists because 'they're terrorists'...

which is like saying 'i'm zero in support of the death penalty, but people should probably die at the hands of the government if they deem it a capital offense.' no logical cohesiveness.