Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.,/B>
Pretty sure those conditions were met in this case. Or am I missing the part where it says you don't have to comply with a legally obtained search warrant? We've had a great deal of success using them in the past catching bad guys. Just because it's inside an iPhone doesn't make it less able to be searched. The guy who owns it owns the thing to seized and the thing to be searched. What, this doesn't count?
And yes, once again we are talking about the possibilities of caging two murdering little thugs. Or doesn't that matter in your opinion?
Read the FBI order and read Apple’s letter to its customers. The issue was not about a search warrant. Apple had already worked with the feds to assist them as far as it could comply (which Apple did not reveal just as cellular phone carriers do not reveal what they provide to law enforcement.) The feds wanted to compel Apple to perform an action that it could not do, specifically because it created its current IOS to be secure. The feds wanted Apple to create an operating system that would allow the feds to access the iPhone and change the features of its existing IOS. Remember that Apple put certain security features into its IOS as result of the feds (i.e., the NSA and God knows which other alphabet agency) already snooping on our cell phones and emails. Remember Edward Snowden? The feds were using this latest incident of terrorism to make the case that the feds need to access cell phones. Cellular phone records including calls made to and from the iPhones in question were already handed over to the feds. A warrant compels someone to hand over information or allow a premises to be searched. It does not compel someone to have to perform an action such as writing new programming code.
And I have challenged you to show me the search warrant legally served on Apple for something they had that was dispositive or probative in the terrorist case.
You have never produced that search warrant because you cannot. It does not exist.
By the way, the way you posted your citation of the Fourth Amendment, and your stress on the limitations of the power of the government, proves my contention "this fixation of yours on the power of the government exposing you as a big government fanatic." Thanks for the immediate validation.