“They can with this specific model of iPhone, sure. The iPhone 5s and newer implements the self-destruct on a hardware chip so it can’t be disabled, even by Apple.

“How would you, if you had the power to create new laws, stop criminals and terrorists from using encryption that can’t be accessed without a warrant?”

“I wish it were different, and there was a way to access criminals encrypted data with a warrant. But it’s not, and until someone figures out a way to change that a compromise has to be made; and the only logical compromise is to allow everyone to encrypt their data even if it means some criminals will be able to hide…

“Who cares why he encrypted it? The point is that there’s no way to stop people from encrypting stuff. If you suddenly had the power to make a new law that stopped people from encrypting their stuff, what would the contents of that law say?”

Now you are confusing 2 different issues. FOCUS.

Now you are really out there....if this is true why hasn’t someone gotten to the nuke codes yet? You are arguing just to argue....you are not really making ANY serious points.

“No security is impenetrable”

btw...they haven’t broken the phone yet, have they? so your assumption is quite premature. Also, since Apple DID NOT COMPLY with the court order, if this company happens to break the phone, the FBI will just withdraw their petition for the court order.

It’s either you still don’t get what this is all about....OR you are just trying to cloud the conversation with your extensive knowledge to copy and paste information regarding encryption. Again, the court order is not about Apple breaking the encryption. It’s about disabling the self-destruct. Focus lately?

you still don’t get it after all this? Nobody is debating the encryption. The FBI is not debating the encryption. Did you read anything? It is the Self destruct that the FBI wants to disable. Still confused?

Oh now you are going back to re-debate something you already lost. I have already debunked your Constitutional arguments...and you know it. Then you brought up the legality of the Writ’s Act...which I also debunked. CALEA argument....debunked. Now you are going back to re-settle a debunked argument? Let me make it…

“ Stop assuming that anything I’m telling you has anything to do with me”

“CALEA doesn’t refer to law enforcement agencies or officers....”

“I don’t think I agree with your conclusion... or your assertion”

CALEA makes it clear that companies may not assist in decrypting...fine! But didn’t the government make it clear that decryption is not what they are asking for? It is the assistance in disabling the self-destruct which is outside of CALEA....and therefore well within the scope of the Writ’s Act. It really is that…

“I never said anything about United States vs NY Telephone. That’s the wrong telecommunications case. I was referring to the other one that’s cited in Apple’s response.”

“Because it was shown that big telecom couldn’t be compelled to create a system which is nearly identical in functionality to the backdoor/hack that the FBI is asking for a precedent was set and this case clearly falls outside of the guidelines of the All Writ’s Act as such.”

“I’m not saying Congress should make a law to defend Apple... I never said anything close to that.

Finally!

That’s all you got? I’ve read it. now what?