The problem with giving "both sides" of an issue equal time is that it can legitimize completely indefensible positions. Global warming is a prime example of this. Virtually every scientist who is familiar with the data is convinced that global warming is happening right now and that drastic action is needed in order to stave off catastrophe. Only a tiny minority disagree. For decades, people on both sides of the issue have been interviewed as though this is something that is genuinely controversial when the truth of the matter is that scientific consensus exists that global warming is real and is happening right now.
Full-disk encryption is one of the best ways to protect users from having their privacy invaded. Cell phones contain a wealth of personal information and can be the starting point for identity theft. The benefit to consumers...the vast majority of whom are lawful...outweighs the risk that law enforcement will be locked out of collecting potentially useful information in the course of an investigation.
To say that full-disk encryption stymies the finest law enforcement minds in the world is ridiculous. There are other ways to collect information. They can serve the cell phone company with a warrant in order to get calling records and text messages. If they can find the e-mail address associated with the user's device, they can serve Google & Apple with a warrant to access GPS data and e-mail correspondence.
I understand that it's a blow to law enforcement to have something like cell phones be suddenly off limits, but technology always enables people to commit crime in new ways. Eventually, the police always catch up.
Let's say you're right, what decision rule do you propose for the NYT editors to decide when to exclude an opinion?
And here's the comedy sketch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ
The problem with doing just that is that you run the risk of misinterpreting or subconsciously strawmanning the opposition. That's what op-eds prevent; they're an unfiltered statement of a view. If everything runs through a rewriter, the reader misses whatever arguments the rewriter feels are too weak to be included.
iMessage logs between users must be fairly hard to get. In yesteryear you could rely on SMS transcripts from the carriers.
"Between October and June, 74 iPhones running the iOS 8 operating system could not be accessed by investigators for the Manhattan district attorney’s office — despite judicial warrants to search the devices." is a bit more than an anecdote.
No, I just don't want them printing things that are wrong ;-)
Would you rather they only print things you agree with? Would rejecting op-eds by some general rule sufficient to exclude this one improve things?
I think I'd rather live in a world in which both sides of every issue get to have their say than in which the losing side is excluded if they're sufficiently "bad".
Edit: that last part isn't quite my position, poorly worded; I'm fine with excluding e.g. neo-nazis and the like, my problem is when "sufficiently bad" includes things like arguing for less encryption.