Was the whole Apple vs FBI showdown a subversive propaganda campaign to cause a "chilling" effect on free speech, since everyone now knows no device will be uncracked by the powers that be? ( conspiracy )

submitted by txtattoo

With every journalist (and their sources) now knowing that all their devices will be cracked in any investigation the police want, it may scare off whistleblowers and dissent.

bonesmccoy

Sure seems this way. Think about this one... In response to a so-called "Copy Cat" mass murder in Calif... the FBI supposedly had an Israeli company hack an Apple iOS device? Since when does the US gov't let a foreign company from a foreign government tap an American phone? Doesn't this mean that all US iOS phones and iCloud accounts are vulnerable?

FacelessOne

Its a honeypot story, think about the data-centers they have and profiles setup for every citizen, a story like the fbi v apple is something that will spark a reaction in the population. The amount of data they were able to collect from the recorded communications accross the internet and likely possible via the os software on any major consumer product. That data was generated and collected by as many possible parties along the chain as possible, Apple prefers to keep as much information as they can as the customers responsibility as stated in the ToU ToS or whatever other legalize they have created to protect themselves from legal recourse.

Those with power will always seek to secure, expand, and re-inforce the limits of said power. If you were expecting to drop the case if it became to inflammatory to the population as some have suggested then you gain information along the ways that pays double returns, with the populations meta data you can now better track with greater accuracy any troublesome citizens who... anyhow you get the picture right. Apple won, FBI won, circus goes dark and the next show is set.

Solo

Lol I guess I misread a couple points. Just edited to be more of a supporting statement based on ho you post currently reads

Solo

Legal precedent is one of the most important contributors to court decisions. If the FBI is able to set precedent for hacking iphones of terrorists, it gives then a pathway for accessing private data and matters of other "criminals". The challenge then transitions away from " what am I allowed to access" to " who am I allowed to access", which is an extremely slippery slope.

Solo

Absolutely. The entire objective was to use media coverage to set precedent for law enforcement accessing private data within us borders. UD courts base decisions heavily on precedent, so now they have a strong foundation to use precedent to invade what was previously protected privacy.

Gerplunckamo

Maybe. Seems plausible.