If our law enforcement cannot understand that terrorists will simply switch to use another encryption tool, then we have a much bigger problem than unlocking a single iPhone. Our security force does not know how to keep us safe. I'd rather they figure out another way sooner than later.
Is this not the same thing that Apple is arguing for? Except they are looking for the conversation to happen before the requested action?
"It is no different than [the question of] should anybody ever have been able to tell the phone company to get information, should anybody be able to get at bank records. Let’s say the bank had tied a ribbon round the disk drive and said ‘don’t make me cut this ribbon because you’ll make me cut it many times’," Gates stressed. [1]
I think that means Gates feels this is only a single case situation, and he does not believe Cook's assertion that Comey is trying to set a precedent.
Unfortunately the full interview is behind the Financial Times paywall.
[1] http://sputniknews.com/us/20160223/1035197491/bill-gates-sup...
This sounds correct to me. Instead of the government being the gatekeeper (access by way of court orders), Apple is arguing Apple should be. Why? Should we trust Apple won't abuse their power when their own interests are at stake?
Remember Terry Childs? Do you mean to tell me if Apple had an an ex-employee with the keys to their kingdom on his/her iPhone, Apple would just write-off 700 billion dollars? They'd crack that phone without thinking twice about it.
How did those rules work out for telecom/internet traffic data... The government can now access anyones data, often even without a judge ruling whether it is necessary.
