Heart attack, smoking, traffic accident - 'silent' deaths. Somewhere, someone passes away. Few people notice, few people care. A big bang - tens or hundreds of victims, millions scared - that's where heros are made. Go kick Sadam's butt. Catch the bad guys before the act using clever data finickery. Hoorah, mankind saved. Or not. Who cares - by the time we learn the great idea didn't work (again), our hero has already won the election, got their budget, bathed in the spotlights.
It's about dodging accountability, not about encryption.
The security agencies have, for all practical purposes, unlimited funds and unlimited rights to do whatever necessary to keep us safe. They should have known where to look,and who to look for, half a year after Paris.
And yet, they failed to protect us. Again, after failing to act on early warnings on the Paris attacks.
Perhaps it is easier for them to bury that topic and talk about encryption instead ...
While this may be a FOIA-request, the scenario 'give me everything we have on ...' is the most standard use case for document management systems.
If each of these searches costs the tax payer 0.1 % of a $573 billion budget, those tax cuts we have been promised for a while now may finally become a reality, when the DoD is encouraged to upgrade its infrastructure, with OCR and metadata search ...
>>But this is the fallacy of copyright in action. The idea that merely taking the picture "creates value."
The fallacy goes further - who does actually create value? Copyright awards seem to rise with the value creation falling: - the person who created the dress gets nothing - the person wearing it (and inspiring the photographer) gets nothing - the photographer may or may not get a small reward - the journalist writing the story may or may not get a small reward, depending on the wording of their contract - the publisher Buzzfeed makes tons of money - every other news publisher makes tons of money (as long as they re-word the Buzzfeed story rather than copying 1:1.
>>We have repeatedly requested that Mr. Vickery permanently delete any and all copies of [...].
Or, in other words, we have made sure that IF the appropriate authorities finally pull the finger out of their ass and start investigating who else may have downloaded private data, they will find no evidence at all.
Why the FBI needs to read the phone data in the first place? It is too late to prevent the crime, the perps are dead - no evidence needed for convictions-, and the FBI itself has concluded that "They were not directed by [foreign terrorist] groups and were not part of any terrorist cell or network"" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack)
Comcast are collecting a 'Netflix-Tax' already, from consumers who voluntarily pay for a faster internet to watch Netflix in the best possible quality. If it weren't for Netflix and other video services, who would need a fast internet at the rates Comcast charges? People would pay for the cheapest line available and still see their emails coming in fast enough.
And with T-Mobile now effectively removing data caps for bandwidth-guzzling video services on mobile connections, it is difficult to see a technical justification for data caps on fixed-line services at all.
Is there any particular reason Curt Beck is not in prison for obstruction of justice? As city attorney in charge of this case, it would have been his responsibility to ensure the appropriate steps are taken to prevent emails from being deleted. One would think his responsibility would have securing a backup of the files in question in his safe, and/or locking away the entire computer the minute the court ordered the emails to be secured.