Re:FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
by tempguy9999 on Saturday August 10, 2019 @08:53AM
(#20661778)
> What evidence do we have that compelling evidence exists on this particular device.
None.
Now ask: what evidence do we have that compelling evidence DOES NOT exist on this particular device.
None again! We can conclude nothing either way.
Re:FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
by michaelmrose on Saturday August 10, 2019 @09:05AM
(#20661821)
Don't you think they need to make a compelling argument that actual evidence exists and is being denied to them before we all install backdoors?
Re:FBI tells lawmakers it can't access Dayton gunman's phone
by tempguy9999 on Saturday August 10, 2019 @09:30AM
(#20661910)
You put up an argument which you haven't acknowledged was vacuous, and from that extrapolated that I somehow must want backdoors even when I clearly said "Fuck, No" to them in an earlier post[1] which you must have read because you replied to it[2]
Honest question, what am I supposed to make of this?
For example if you wanted to know who the person associated with he almost certainly communicated with people in a way that could be obtained by serving a warrant to his ISP.
If you want to know what influenced him looking at his web traffic would be advantageous.
Instead of working backwards from hypothetical lets reason the correct way. What evidence do we have that compelling evidence exists on this particular device.