The disingenuous question (FBIvApple)
I need more than 140 characters to respond to this tweet:If you were a crime victim and key evidence was on suspect's phone, would you want govt to search phone w/ warrant?— Orin Kerr (@OrinKerr) February 22, 2016
It's an invalid question to ask. Firstly, it's asking for the emotional answer, not the logical answer. Secondly, it's only about half the debate, when the FBI is on your side, and not against you.
The emotional question is like ISIS kidnappings. Logically, we know that the ransom money will fund ISIS's murderous campaign, killing others. Logically, we know that paying this ransom just encourages more kidnappings of other people -- that if we stuck to a policy of never paying ransoms, then ISIS would stop kidnapping people.
If it were my loved ones at stake, of course I'd do anything to get them back alive and healthy, including pay a ransom. But at the same time, logically, I'd vote for laws to stop people paying ransoms. In other words, I'd vote for laws that I would then happily break should the situation ever apply to me.
Thus, the following question has no meaning in a policy debate over paying Continue reading



Kicking off Mobile World Congress with the state of the new Nokia.
Progress in Linux containers from the likes of Avi, Mesosphere, and PLUMgrid.
NTT will run EPC in its network with NFV technology, starting in March.