2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Razgovory]

I don't see the nature of the crime as particularly relevant either.  Hell, if it wasn't the Muslim connection it would just be a slightly atypical mass shooting.  After any such crime the police should investigate, simply as a matter of course.

Let us say we have two investigations.  In one the suspect keeps incriminating documents in a file cabinet.  The police get a warrant, pop the lock and open it easy-peasy.  In the second investigation the suspect has incriminating documents on his iphone.  To obtain access the police ask Apple to help them and Apple tells them to piss up a rope.  The take away seems to be that people who buy expensive electronics have additional rights from search and seizure then people who do not.  That doesn't seem fair.

[Berkut]

Okay, Tim what is the proper procedure the government should undertake to look at the Cell phone?

The Beeb laid out the proper procedure. As I said that's not the problem. The problem is that the government will not follow the procedure.

Okay, so government can't ever investigate because it's government?  That's a rather silly stance.

Yeah, it's silly, but it seems to be the stance of several posters here.  I don't get it.  I mean, I certainly understand the idea of not trusting the government and not wanting to give it too much power, but that's why we require search warrants in the first place.  If you take the positions some people here seem to be taking, that we can't trust law enforcement to stay within the bounds of judicial oversight, then it would seem that you should be opposed to the police ever being allowed to get a search warrant, but it wouldn't matter, because they'd just illegally search your stuff anyway.

That is not my position.

My position is that there is a long history of the state using niche reasons for why they should be allowed to do something to then leverage that into more general cases.

In this case, the state is saying "Hey, we want to be able to look at this terrorists phone! We all agree that this is fine!"

If they get the power to do so, I am completely certain, given the history, that they will then promptly follow that up with "Hey, we've established that we have the power to look at encrypted phones because that previous case established that, so looking at YOUR encrypted phone is perfectly fine as well..."

It never, ever ends with just the specifics of the case in question, and it *always* is then used as justification for broadening that power to the general case. Every. Single. Time.

Ok, but did you read my other post on the matter?  I don't see that the fact that it's a terrorism case is particularly relevant.  I don't have a problem with the police looking at any individual's phone if they have a proper warrant.  I just don't see where the distinction plays a role, whether it's a terrorism case, or a security fraud case, or a rape case, or a narcotics case, etc.  As long as they're not looking at people's phones without warrants, I don't see the problem--and if they start looking at people's phones without warrants, then the problem isn't that they have the ability to look at phones, it's that they're conducting illegal searches.

I have no problem with them looking at someones phone with a warrant, but I do have a problem with the state thinking it has the power to compel a third party to help them do so.

[Berkut]

Of course the nature of the crime is not relevant - except in that they are using a case where nobody has any sympathy for the criminal to leverage new standards which they will then use against everyone else.

I am very skeptical that this is the very first time some law enforcement agency wanted to know what was on one of these iPhones.

It is a handy case because you can have all the fearmongers going on about TEH TERRORISM.

And who gives a shit about the privacy rights of terrorists?

[dps]

Ok, but did you read my other post on the matter? 

I have no problem with them looking at someones phone with a warrant, but I do have a problem with the state thinking it has the power to compel a third party to help them do so.

OK, that's fair enough, and was basically my point in the other post I eluded to.

[Razgovory]

Still seems problematic since the police would not be able to serve a warrant whenever it involves a third party.  The police can't compel a self-storage owner to open up one of his units.  Or an apartment building owner for that matter.  I don't think placing evidence in the hands of a third party should subvert a police investigation.

[jimmy olsen]

Silver lays out the pro and anti Trump will win arguments

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-optimists-and-trump-skeptics-are-about-to-go-to-war/

He agrees with the betting markets at the end, 50% Trump, 40% Rubio, 10% other.

[viper37]

So I ask again, what exactly should the government do to further their investigation? 

find a way to crack it on themselves, like they would pop the lock of a filing cabinet, not wait for the maker of said cabinet to provide keys.

[LaCroix]

technology increases at a rate faster than court opinions. apple will have to provide, just as telephone providers today provide

[Martinus]

I don't understand why people like Marco Rubio. Say what you will about most of the other candidates, but at least they seem to have some backbone. Rubio is a complete empty suit, that will be totally controlled by Wall Street (sure, most of the other candidates may be influenced by their donors too, but he seems to completely lack any agenda of his own).

[The Brain]

Maybe he has an agenda in his phone?

[Eddie Teach]

I don't understand why people like Marco Rubio. Say what you will about most of the other candidates, but at least they seem to have some backbone. Rubio is a complete empty suit, that will be totally controlled by Wall Street (sure, most of the other candidates may be influenced by their donors too, but he seems to completely lack any agenda of his own).

Huh, I don't think Wall Street was behind the Tea Party. Rubio is a less rabid version of Cruz.

[celedhring]

Yeah, I really don't get the "establishment" part of Rubio, his opinions seem pretty tea-partier to me, just with a nicer smile.

He's just sewn it, anyhow.

[Martinus]

Well maybe it's anecdotal, but I spoken with a few NY hedge fund guys recently and they all told me that the respective partners/owners of their funds all support Rubio. That seems to fit the narrative that he is a puppet.

[Martinus]

Anyways, unless this has been lost somewhere amidst the Raz's Autistic Apple Analysis, Jeb's out.

[Admiral Yi]

Can you guys give me some examples of Rubio's crazy Tea Party ideas?

All I know about the guy is he was for amnesty and he didn't propose a crazy tax decrease like others did.