I think the precedence is more important than that. An exploit for this version of the OS in the wild is bad, but setting the standard that companies are legally obligated to pour whatever resources the govt says into breaking their own tech is worse. It becomes an issue for corporate bean counters who will cost and risk analyze encryption with the knowledge that they may need to break it at some point. It's much more efficient to pre-engineer exploits. We'll never get a secure piece of software again.
Yup, no need to worry about using evidence in due process. If they could unlock these things without telling anyone we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. At least until the whole thing busted open like Stingray use in Baltimore.
"So in the same way I’d argue we legalize drugs, why not have a careful, legal pathway to break into a phone?"
You see we've had such a hard time controlling illegal drugs that we're realizing that it may make a lot more sense to legitimize their use. People just go and use them anyway, damn the consequences. Restrictions don't reduce demand, actually reward suppliers, and end up ruining many more lives than would most illicit substances.
In much the same way, we should respond to the threat of encryption by criminalizing the creation and use of actual secure systems. Security is much easier to identify in regard to whether it is allowed or banned, much harder to smuggle across jurisdictions, and much more dangerous to it's users than pot.
We will declare war on encryption, it will flood the nation from 3rd world countries, become common place in various areas, our prison population will explode, we'll spend 30 years and $1.5 trillion before realizing that it's a pointless and kinda stupid struggle that most of us didn't really want to undertake in the first place.
"The lack of control over the content by content companies and authentication processes has reduced the demand for video because you don’t have to pay for it"
Either that or the control. Personally, I HATE watching anything that someone else, preferably a multinational cartel, doesn't have complete control over. Talk about "not understanding the space." Le sigh.
So do we need a law against proposing legislation that you know full well is illegal and either can't be enacted, or will need to be struck down by the courts? The fine can be however much taxpayer money you waste.
Makes me think running the "Marshmallow Test" on them would be interesting.
Tester: You can eat this Cookie now if you want, but I'll give you two cookies if you wait 15 minutes. Cable Exec: I understand; I choose two now and two later. Tester: No, you don- where did you get that bag of Marshmallows? Cable Exec: It was in the lab next door. So where's my three cookies? Tester: Next door? That's where we're testing the streaming video execs. And what are you talking about THREE cookies? Cable Exec: Four now... chop chop, time's a wastin'. Tester: Hey! Give back my watch!
I'm hoping this is the FCC giving Comcast just enough rope to hang itself. Let them go out and actually do the things they were claiming they "would never do!" just last year. Let them use their near monopoly status and usage caps to ram Comcast Content into customers homes; and use exactly that behavior as the wedge to force them to split apart their colluding infrastructure and content businesses. Once the "Com" is separate from "Cast" they won't be able to argue that they're not just pipes delivering bits, which opens the door for local loop unbundling... I know, I'm dreaming again.
Offender Located. Seize house, car, camera. Sell House, Car, Camera. Use proceeds to hunt for more offenders. Whoops forgot to delete illicit material from camera. Offender Located. Seize house, car, camera. Sell House, Car, Camera. Use proceeds to hunt for more offenders. Whoops forgot to delete illicit material from camera....
Citizens are perfectly capable of weighing these factors and making these decisions themselves. That's exactly what consent is.
This is precisely what happened. The court weighed all future traffic stops and unilaterally decided that everyone wanted to give their consent, even the cases where said "probable cause" is B.S. and wouldn't result in a warrant. The only convenience provided is not having to decide if you want your rights, because you're preemptively denied them.
Can I assume this ruling will get escalated to a higher court where they've got a clue why there are "rules for government" at all?