>
Think if someone was marketing uncrackable physical storage. A dead terrorist who had brought down 14 commercial jets with surface to air missiles was found to own such a storage. Do you think the owner of this storage facility would refuse to cooperate and go public and make a stink about it? This is exactly what an encrypted phone is and what Apple did in this case. Except for one little detail you're conveniently glossing over. It's been stated a million times already, but obviously you haven't heard it yet. Let me shout it for you. Sheesh...
- THERE WASN'T ANYTHING OF VALUE ON THE IPHONE, AND THE FBI KNEW IT.
- THE TERRORISTS TOOK EXTREME CARE TO DESTROY THEIR "BURNER" PHONES THAT HAD TERRORIST DATA ON THEM.
- THE IPHONE WAS A "WORK" PHONE FROM HIS EMPLOYER, WHICH HIS EMPLOYER CONTROLLED.
- IT WAS PATENTLY OBVIOUS THAT IT HAD NOTHING OF VALUE ON IT -- WHICH THE FBI LATER ADMITTED WAS TRUE.
This case was NEVER about the data on the phone. It was strictly, and obviously, a lever to try to force Apple to destroy their own encryption, because the FBI doesn't like encryption.
Period. Sorry for shouting, but your analogy simply does not apply here.
THE IPHONE WAS A "WORK" PHONE FROM HIS EMPLOYER, WHICH HIS EMPLOYER CONTROLLED The employer has access to the phone's content via the iCloud backup function... until the FBI told them to change the password and decouple the phone from the cloud. Either the FBI investigators are so inept that they make the Keystone Kops look like Sherlock Holmes, or they deliberately sabotaged their existing access so that they could demand new access and set a precedent for routinely doing so in the future. They should not be rewarded for their incompetence (if it's the former) or corruption (if it's the latter).