“Why would you want judges to stop issuing warrants? That’s an insane suggestion...”

I am not letting you get away with this:

Again you are posting items that DO NOT debunking my posts.... The FBI never disclosed the identity of the hackers. Where in your link does it say that the FBI disclosed the identity of the hackers?

Of course...you are an absolutist to only believe encryption experts. How about law experts, law enforcement, justice and security experts? If any law is to be made would you only take advice from people who obviously have bias on the subject? I know you would. Absolutist view...hear only what you want to hear.

“Not really, since AES encryption hasn’t been broken I don’t see how the two are related at all.”

“Further it would be utterly pointless to order someone who isn’t the encrypted device’s owner to unlock it. The point of encryption is nobody can read it except the one who picked the encryption key, which is almost always the owner.”

“I’m not talking about a law, I’m referring to case law and the precedents set in several previous trials. I provided a link in a previous reply.”

“How do you force criminals to submit to court orders? If the thing you’re ordering them to unlock contains info that would get them multiple life sentences no amount of court orders would convince them to decrypt it...”

“You’re incorrect, the ‘absolutists’ said ‘we can’t help’. If asked ‘why’ they can’t help they’ll respond with ‘we don’t know how’.”

“All three statements are valid... a judge can legally charge someone with contempt if they refuse an order to decrypt a file, but they can only order them to decrypt the file in the first place if said person has been charged with a crime and said device belongs to them. I provided a link to further information.…

So you went from:

“The debate is whether something should be done about encryption that is that strong or not, and if something should be done then what?”

“Don’t make the mistake of pasting this quote again:”

What else is there to talk about? You already conceded to everything. WHy don’t you read what you’ve been writing and draw conclusions from it?

“I don’t think you understand my statement if you’ve come to that conclusion.”

Yes, it is reasonable that the manufacturer helps. That’s what the law requires. Whether you are actually “helpful” is a different issue. The problem with Apple is they came out yelling “I won’t help”. That is not reasonable.

“As far as your airplane analogy goes: the airport or the airplane-company can choose to refuse to let you fly if you refuse to let them search you, and a judge can sentence you to contempt of court if you refuse to decrypt a file. That’s legal and should be. But there’s no way to break in to a properly encrypted file…

“You asked “why be an absolutist” in your first comment. That ^ is why, because the people who are the most knowledgeable about encryption on the entire planet say that it is an absolute situation with no gray area. No expert on the subject of encryption has ever said that they think there is a way to make encryption…

So where did it say that he wants to make new laws? He said lets discuss? so, you are not even up to discussion? All the man says is let’s talk about it. But you are jumping to let’s make bad laws.

“Uh oh... you seem to have gone off topic. We’re talking about Obama’s comments on encryption, not the Apple vs FBI case or court order...