“This is a legal request to be able to tap into the phone of a mass murderer.”
I don’t want to be picking on you, but you seem to be missing the point that what the warrant will provide is the ability to “tap” everyone’s phone.
So those that don’t believe the gov’t will behave and not use that technology in that way are those on the side of Apple.
Sort of like asking for a warrant that taps a particular land line to a house, but puts the tap on the whole central office, so it picks up everything in the town.
Not the best analogy, but somewhat describes the point you’re missing.
“I don’t want to be picking on you, but you seem to be missing the point that what the warrant will provide is the ability to “tap†everyone’s phone.”
But you are not picking on me, you are picking on our safety and the Constitution. I don’t care if you “pick on me” because there has yet to be a measurement invented that could measure the minute amount of indifference I have towards your opinion of me.
No one with a basic understanding of law and business would build such a thing for mass consumer markets. Only a child would believe otherwise. A stupid child. A technical oversight is one thing, something that can thwart the Constitution is quite another. Something that would give the gift of unbreakable communications would be on a par with the enigma machine that the Germans unleashed on us. Try to think how that impacted the war and hastened the death of MILLIONS.