Yup absolutely. So, they have his phone, they took it upon themselves to change the passcode, have at it. The government and all their capability have the right to confiscate property, and to seize once the court order is done. That PERSONAL property is in the hands of the government.
What the government shouldn’t be able to do is to compel a third party or manufacturer into forcefully weakening or removing their built in safety. This is why Apple doesn’t want to be in the middle.
As to the silly notion that it’s for just one phone and it’s for the children... Just look at history. You really buying that? I suppose this time it will be different. Never mind once other countries start demanding the same access for their laws. This is why Apple is purposefully trying to make their products completely private and only the end users of the messages can view them. It’s exactly what I want personally. I want to minimize my risk of identity theft, I demand that from my products.
There is no such thing as a one time only digital break, that is just pure fantasy being pushed by people ignorant or those pushing an agenda.
Traditionally many things were permitted for the sake of war that were never permitted for the sake of domestic crime affairs.
We have a problem here but not what most people think, Bulb. It’s a problem of calling war, crime-fighting.
There are constitutional provisions for what is a war. We might not always like it, but that’s the best the Constitution has afforded.
“As to the silly notion that it’s for just one phone and it’s for the children... Just look at history.”
I am looking at history. It’s called the Constitution. thanks for repeating the same mistake everyone else has that is against this. The REAL dangerous precedent here would be to ignore it. And you don’t ignore it without going through the process, which is complying or showing cause why you can’t. The “I don’t trust you” defense is not one of those.