Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you shoot a bunch of people while declaring allegiance to an organized group known for shooting bunches of people then I think that pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents. If this doesn't clear your hurdle for reasonable search then what would? To be clear, I don't think the order to Apple is necessaril…
...pretty clearly demonstrates that reading your communications has a pretty high likelihood of turning up something useful in preventing future incidents. It sounds like common sense, I guess, but has that ever worked, actually? Similar "prevention" rationale is offered for governments to spy on virtually all telecom all the time, now. But this shooting happened anyway.
1) Anyone with a plan promised to stop all terrorist attacks is lying to you, stupid, or both. You can't have a free society and a 0% chance of political violence.
2) Yes, searching the possessions and communications of dead terrorists unsurprisingly are substantially more likely to lead to useful criminal leads than reading your metadata. A warrant to read this person's stuff isn't unreasonable in the slightest, an order forcing apple to do shit might be but that's a procedural thing unrelated to the core issue of "is there a good reason to read this person's stuff"