Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BoonDoggler who wrote (188295)	2/19/2016 12:13:32 AM
From: BlueSpruce	1 Recommendation Recommended By Doren Respond to of 213177

>>My guess, Art, is that the feds are more interested in using this case to establish legal precedent, that if the government asks a corporation to provide a backdoor to a device, that there is legal precedent for doing so.<< BINGO. Bing Freaking O.

To: BoonDoggler who wrote (188295)	2/19/2016 1:02:26 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	1 Recommendation Recommended By i-node Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

Of course, the govt. would like to establish a legal precedent. But the real question is, what would they gain from unlocking the iPhone? Very likely you are right that invading the privacy right of an alleged Islamic terrorist would fare better with the public than gaining a back door into anyone else's phone. Another possible outcome, however, might show that the alleged perpetrator had no role at all but was set up by someone else. Does the govt. want to admit it looked for the wrong person all along? I don't think so. In other words, what I'm suggesting is the government would like to open that phone to use for its own purposes, and not necessarily for public benefit. If that's how the courts would likely rule, then it's a good thing Apple is challenging the government. I think the courts would support Apple, at least the 9th District Court of Appeals. And then a deadlocked 4 to 4 Supreme Court would end up leaving the lower court ruling stand. Art