“Apple can be called on to provide it whenever the government thinks it needs it.” And has convinced a judge to issue a warrant.
Just like has been done since before the founding of our nation.
But, despite the clarity of this issue to me I’m glad a rich company like Apple has the resources to resist an overreaching by the government on this new matter of “un-openable safes”.
I certainly don’t want the Fourth Amendment made useless as Apple wishes, but neither do I want a solution that gives government power to do more than has historically been done.
has the resources to resist an overreaching by the government on this new matter of “un-openable safesâ€.
I certainly don’t want the Fourth Amendment made useless as Apple wishes, but neither do I want a solution that gives government power to do more than has historically been done
As I understand it, the fourth amendment was not about the creation of search warrants, but rather to constrain the use. So I don’t know that Apple wishes to make the 4th useless. But I like the phrase, “unopenable safe”. Of course an unopenable safe would be pointless. But a safe that can only be opened by its owner and no one else—that’s kind of what we’re looking at here. If I were to invent and market a safe that can only be opened if the owner follows an exact procedure, and if the procedure is not followed, the contents of the safe will be destroyed—would the government have power to force me to help them open the safe? And if I truthfully told them I couldn’t—because my design was clever enough to defeat any attempts to bypass its design, would I be liable to be punished? Should the government outlaw ownership of such safes (except for those used n government service, of course)?