FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
1–10 of 142 posts
Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
#2>The San Bernardino litigation isn’t about trying to set a precedent or send any kind of message. It is about the victims and justice.
This is a big fat lie.
The way US legal system works makes any case like this about setting a precedent, be it intentional or not. The fact that the FBI director goes and straight up lies about this just supports the theory that it may very well be intentional.
Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
#3In other words, they're sticking to their story.
No mention of the iCloud password reset either.
Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
#4In other words, they're sticking to their story. No mention of the iCloud password reset either.
> No mention of the iCloud password reset either.
Exactly. How can you not address that?
They necessitated this whole mess through their actions. I try not to ascribe malice to what can easily be explained through incompetence, but to not even mention it? Shameful.
Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
#5These people are either being intentionally deceitful or are simply incompetent in understanding the full implications of what they're asking. Either possibility is disturbing.
Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
#6These people are either being intentionally deceitful or are simply incompetent in understanding the full implications of what they're asking. Either possibility is disturbing.
I think the amount of unnecessary emotional appeals makes it fairly clear that they're being intentionally deceitful.
Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
#7It should be resolved by the American people deciding how we want to govern ourselves in a world we have never seen before. We shouldn’t drift to a place—or be pushed to a place by the loudest voices—because finding the right place, the right balance, will matter to every American for a very long time.
So why are they asking the courts to stretch the 1789 All Writs Act beyond its breaking point, instead of going to Congress for a new law? The magistrate that signed off on this isn't even an Article III judge.
Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
#8[deleted]
Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
#9I'll go ahead and say that it sounds extremely sincere and straight-forward, much unlike most official statements I've seen from the FBI. He does suggest that his view is right, but he does the right thing, as apple did, in supporting a public discourse about the so-called balance between privacy and safety.
I know many people seem to gravitate to the extremes on every issue, but both Cook and Comey are right in saying that we as a nation need to question our fundamental assumptions in our thinking and think through what the would be the best balance between the two, if there be any. As Comey says, and I personally agree with this, the "balance" shouldn't be decided "by corporations that sell stuff for a living" or by "the FBI which investigates for a living,"...or in general, the government. We shouldn't be grass in a fight between two elephants. The American people need to decide how much involvement both government and large multinational corporations have in their lives. That's what this all comes down to, after all.
Re: FBI Director Comments on San Bernardino Matter
#10It should be resolved by the American people deciding how we want to govern ourselves in a world we have never seen before. We shouldn’t drift to a place—or be pushed to a place by the loudest voices—because finding the right place, the right balance, will matter to every American for a very long time. So why are they asking the courts to stretch the 1789 All Writs Act beyond its breaking point, instead of going to C…
Except he did go to Congress, and came back with nothing, forcing him to use the AWA.
So who is pushing who exactly? And who has a louder voice in criminal justice matters than the FBI?