I am not. I never saw this as a "privacy issue." I always saw this as a refusal by a big corporation to Obey a constitutional law requirement.
The Judge in a court proceeding determines when fourth amendment rights have been met. When a judge decides their is sufficient cause to issue a search writ or warrant, then the "privacy" issues have already been dealt with.
At that point, people need to OBEY THE SEARCH WARRANT.
Failure to do so is to put yourself against Constitutional rule of law.
Apple should have helped to open the dead terrorist's cell phone. No privacy issues were at stake.
Please show us all where in the Constitution of the United States the All Writs Act is placed? In which Amendment or section is it written? Apple did not receive a Search Warrant for the data in these iPhones, you idiot. It is NOT what you keep trying to make this case into to. The government has the power to search this iPhone as much as it wants to. It does not have the power to force anyone not involved in the owner ship of those data to have anything to do with opening the device if they do not want to do it.
They are perfectly capable of contracting with willing vendors who DO want to do that service. They are not empowered by anything in the Constitution to FORCE an UNWILLING vendor to do it for them. . . yet there are many things in the Constitution that say they CANNOT do it.
You focus on just ONE subordinate clause in an Amendment and ignore the most important primary clause of that Amendment. . . the one that focuses on the PURPOSE of that Amendment: the RIGHT of the People which it is protecting.
That focus of yours shows us that you are, at heart, a STATIST. You believe in the power and right of government over all other RIGHTS and, above all, the sovereignty of the source of the power of the government which derives from the PEOPLE who created that government as an instrument of THEIRS, not the other way around. You have it completely upside down.
When the feds come to my door with a search warrant, they search for the stuff in the warrant.
I don’t.
Funny, but when I studied constitutional law, fourth amendment review didn’t begin and end with magistrate judges.
I presume that you don't see taxes as an "economic issue", don't see open borders as a "security issue", and don't see obesity as a "health issue". If you're going to be invincibly ignorant, you might as well be consistent about it.
I always saw this as a refusal by a big corporation to Obey a constitutional law requirement.
Even the judges with their magickal Penumbral Emanation Spectacles[tm] cannot find any such "constitutional law requirement". The only requirement that exists, either in the actual Constitution or the current legal interpretations thereof, is to stand aside and allow the police to take a look if they show you a warrant. There is no obligation to actively assist.
At that point, people need to OBEY THE SEARCH WARRANT.
Apple did obey the search warrant. They left the Feds in possession of the phone and did not interfere with their efforts to get into it.
Apple should have helped to open the dead terrorist's cell phone.
An incorrect argument, and an irrelevant one since the point of the exercise was to establish an anti-privacy precedent, not to get into one specific phone.