undefined | Better HN

0 pointsikeboy9y ago0 comments

Unless the county was forced to hand it over, this is not relevant.

0 comments

can you explain the comment on relevance a bit more? You said it twice but I'm not seeing your point.

Regarding the Director's double speak I think it is relevant. The FBI or federal government is still not the owner. Regardless of whether the device was seized or surrendered the property is still owned by the county.

> What he's saying is "we want it both ways". We don't want to take away security for users, we just want to make it easier for someone who's not the owner of the phone to get into it.

ikeboyOP9y ago

If they have permission from the owner, it's wrong to describe it as trying to get into "someone else's phone". There's no expectation of privacy in a government owned phone.

newjersey9y ago

Who decides paying $1M to get access to a government owned device is appropriate use of public money though?

Why didn't they go through proper channels? Why did they reset the iCloud passwords? What steps have they taken to prevent this from happening in the future?

The FBI is doing a lot of hand waving and there is no accountability. Where are all those fiscal conservatives when we need them?

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse