FBI agrees to unlock iPhone for Arkansas prosecutor

Re:FBI agrees to unlock iPhone for Arkansas prosecutor by einarvollset on Thursday March 31, 2016 @12:44AM (#11395045)

I think you are confusing the arguments for granting a search warrant in this specific case (terrorism), with the overall argument behind granting the powers that a search warrant provides in general (not terrorism specific)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FBI agrees to unlock iPhone for Arkansas prosecutor by bediger4000 on Thursday March 31, 2016 @01:25AM (#11395164)

I'm sorry, I don't see how the above statements relate to John Comey's public explanations of why hacking the iPhone in question was so important. Maybe you can expand on the above to clarify that relationship?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FBI agrees to unlock iPhone for Arkansas prosecutor by einarvollset on Thursday March 31, 2016 @11:09PM (#11402289)

Law is not made on a case by case basis. There is a general set of powers that gets granted for something like a search warrant. Just because a govt official argues that a specific case is terrorism related, does not mean that the general powers granted by a search warrant is "just cause terrorism". Instead, to have a coherent argument you have to argue against why the govt should have been given the search warrant in the first place.

If you're a programmer you'll understand - you can't argue generally about a class because of the properties of an instance of that class.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:FBI agrees to unlock iPhone for Arkansas prosecutor by bediger4000 on Friday April 01, 2016 @05:48PM (#11408860)

Law is not made on a case by case basis.

I see where you've gone astray: law is made on a case-by-case basis in the USA. The USA has a "common law" system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) where precedent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent) is overwhelmingly important.

If I understand correctly, the FBI was attempting to set a precedent, using an instance that has lots of emotional appeal ("Terrorism!") and they were really working that emotional aspect ("Couldn't look the survivors in the eye") hard. Once that precedent is set, the USA's legal system would require some new laws to make the precedent go away (in a legal sense). The FBI could at the least operate under the legality of the precedent until the new law(s) take effect, if such new laws get made. They often don't, and the USA just rides on the precedent.

[ Parent | on HN ]