@emptywheel I don't deny there are people who--for reasons good and bad--do not trust the government to play by the rules.
-
-
@emptywheel I'm writing a response to Clarke's interview right now. But both government + Apple stipulate on record only Apple can do it. -
@Susan_Hennessey@emptywheel James Clapper also stipulated something on the record, once. -
@ericgeller@emptywheel What does "can" even mean here? A world with no rules, no laws? Where Apple sits in Pyongyang? -
@ericgeller@emptywheel And assuming capacity did exist, is this the road we really want? Tech says to US IC "Beat me if you can..." -
@Susan_Hennessey@emptywheel If capacity does exist, then this current process is basically govt saying "make it easy for us," no? -
@ericgeller@emptywheel I think this inserts troubling confusion, fails to see the new law and policies this would implicate. -
@Susan_Hennessey How so? FBI uses outside forensics all the time to access phones. It is status quo, not new thing.@ericgeller -
@emptywheel@ericgeller I don't know any legal precedent that says DOJ has obligation to consult with IC to assert "necessity." - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@emptywheel@Susan_Hennessey Think what she's trying to say is if Gov could hack brain-wave knowledge, they should be allowed if law passed. -
@ubiqunity@emptywheel Not sure I follow, but sure, if a constitutional law passes by elected body then.. umm yes, it should be allowed. -
@Susan_Hennessey Like CALEA? That law should be followed?@ubiqunity -
@emptywheel If the courts decide--however improbably to my mind--that CALEA applies here, then yes, that should be followed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.