San Bernardino survivor’s husband backs Apple in battle with FBI | Hacker News Reader

San Bernardino survivor’s husband backs Apple in battle with FBI

techcrunch.com

187 pointsdavid9036 comments

This man is very brave for taking a stance with which some of his wife's coworkers may not agree. He already had to be brave to be there for his kids and now he is opposing the DOJ. Full letter:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2729428/KondokerLetter...

He is acting with integrity, which, arguably, is even more significant than bravery by itself.

Why is it important what do the survivors of the attack think? Justice system is supposed to be objective - we don't ask a widow what should we do with a murderer.

Because the director of the FBI said one one of the reasons they were pursuing this was so they could look the families of the victims in the eye and say they'd done all they could to bring them justice.

If the families say, actually, we'd rather you didn't do this, then that makes that particular argument less effective.

Plus, the families of victims are often discussed in murder cases. It doesn't change the ability of the government to prosecute, but it's informative to the feelings of those most effective.

That's purely a marketing & power play statement, not one of meaningful decision making.

Sure. But this battle between the FBI and Apple is at least as much a PR and Political battle as it is a legal battle.

The FBI's proposed interpretation of the AWA's powers is going to be a tough sell to appellate courts, as far as I can see. Their main play here has been to try to generate enough of a PR shitstorm that Apple decides not to challenge the writ and just plays along. And if that doesn't work, they're hoping to provoke enough outrage when Apple wins that congress is nudged into giving them the powers they want.

> Their main play here has been to try to generate enough of a PR shitstorm that Apple decides not to challenge the writ and just plays along.

Insofar as there is a political/PR battle, I think its just as likely that they want to lose publicly and use that to reinforce moves under way for getting specific new authority legislated. It's perhaps not coincidental that the various All-Writs Acts cases all came up after discussion of Congress adopting rules regulating provision of consumer end-to-end encryption.

From the statements thus far, it seems that the FBI has neither given much thought to unintended consequences such as foreign governments demands for similar access, nor been able to stay on message whether this is 'just for one phone' or for many. If the idea is to lose the case, which it could possibly be, they've executed that plan poorly because its now a PR fiasco.

To be clear, I'm assuming when you say 'lose' you mean the case, not lose the PR battle. The latter is of course always a bad idea when you want to get your way.

So it's good to undermine that marketing bullshit, right?

Much of this trial is being held in the court of public opinion. If the FBI does not win this case, there will be a massive push to pass a law giving the FBI these rights, which requires popular support. The FBI have wisely decided to exploit a tragedy to push through their assault on rights, and to use the families of the victims as a weapon to garner sympathy. One person has decided he doesn't want his tragedy exploited, and is brave enough to say that out loud. That's a huge deal.

> we don't ask a widow what should we do with a murderer.

Ya, we do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_impact_statement

The FBI has requested that the families of the victims be able to submit amicus briefs to the court regarding this case. So the judge will literally be reading their statements. This is a somewhat questionable practice, as this particular case will be decided as a matter of law, which is really only supposed to be about looking at the letter of the law, past cases, and the actions of the FBI with respect to these. So, you're right, it's not relevant but it's also not irrelevant, especially as it undermines the FBI's narrative.

The whole bourgeoning field of legal thought called "Restorative justice" is questioning the logic of pursuing justice for justice sake. Ignoring the victims wants while prioritizing the wills of career-minded prosecutors and the cynical world-view of law enforcement. To me that sounds broken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

Erm... you totally ought to ignore the stated "desires" of victims when, say, going after a murderer, who may threaten the surviving relatives so that they say they don't want persecution. There are pretty good reasons for criminals being sued by the state for some crimes and by the victim in others (I don't have a source but I'd use "economic analysis of law" to find some of the sources that try to approach this issue systematically.)

On the other hand, since in reality the rule of law is often way weaker than the rule of, say, public opinion, or bribes, etc. etc., it of course matters a lot what the victim thinks; if one thinks that the whole purpose of the FBI is to sway the public opinion to gain power, then of course the way to counter this is to sway the public opinion in the opposite direction, and the public will care about the victim's opinion. (In general, it feels that the share of the population truly believing in "the rule of law" as in "let's follow these written rules literally instead of arbitrarily interpreting them to suit our current desires and then priding ourselves on having and following great laws" is rather small; I'm not sure if it's good or bad...)

Depends if it's a good or bad law. I think we have seen plenty of examples of both but the downside of a bad law is significantly more injurious. I think sometimes we fail to appreciate just how much a bad law affects an individual because it's abstracted away or "collateral damage"

Opinion also sways what gets prosecuted. This cuts both ways in that the prosecutor wants to appear tough on law or favors can be had because of "affluenza" etc. Neither is right and I do believe good laws need to be applied consistently.

I personally don't care, but the public might, and since the FBI seemed to cherry pick this opportunity to push the issue when public opinion might be more favorable to its request, it's nice to see something that counters it - even if only in the sphere of public opinion

At a high level, the justice system has never been objective, at least in regards to the poor and minority groups.

Justice system should try to settle matters first, be objective second, and deliver retribution third - in fall-thru fashion.

So yes, there are bounds where you have to ask the victim. Often you don't even have case when victim decides to settle (not in cases of murder obviously).

The West Wing's excellent take on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zrap9ljIVWk&feature=youtu.be...

I agree. This should be a matter of law rather than what victims or survivors think. Likely if you polled all the victims most would side with the FBI. But its no surprise either side trots out its popular supporters when convenient.

I also find this strange but it's common in the US. The families of crime victims often have a say.

They already have too much sympathy because they are victims. Nobody cares about the assailants.

So, they get longer sentence and less help. What are they going to do when they're out there in the street?

Yeah but its also a democracy. So public opinions matter in the long run.

Things like this make me proud to be an American -- seeing my countrymen do the right thing and take a stand for freedom.

Hard to argue for american pride when the US goverment is the danger

Defining nations as their government, and not their people, is a dangerous thing.

Not giving into hysteria is the mark of heroism.

Probably a bit late in the game to ask this, but I haven't seen it discussed elsewhere.

Why is it possible for Apple to update the software of a locked phone?

Is this something we expect to change in future releases of iOS given recent events?

It's something that has already changed. This is only happening because the iPhone in question is a 5C, which doesn't have a Secure Enclave.

Sure about that? I thought they could still issue firmware updates to the SE without password.

Do you have a source available?

More to the point would how do the survivors feel about it.

If the FBI really wanted to save lives, they would put governors on every vehicle and make owning a lighter require a license.

The lies of the tobacco industry, lead industry and food industry have killed millions of people. And the selfish desire to drive personal automobiles have killed millions of people.

If we are going to restrict human freedom for safety, let's do it in a way that saves the most lives?

All right, inmates. We have a new job opening up soon in the prison, that pays $2.00 per hour! By a show of hands, how many of you have a medical degree with experience in oncology? And any in vascular surgery? Any medical degree at all? Psychiatrists, even?

Ok, looks like just those two. Anybody else? Maybe just a B.S. in chemistry or biology?

If you lack existing qualifications, and are still interested, the state has given us a grant to provide a twelve week training course to make some of you inmates into bona fide researchers, to investigate cures for cancer and vascular disease. You cannot have any disciplinary infractions for the entire twelve weeks if you want to graduate.

If you know someone who is a doctor, please also look into our referral program, wherein if you can successfully frame or entrap a physician into committing a felony, you can receive furlough days, conjugal visits, or even sentence reduction.

Lighters sold in the US have safety mechanisms.

And for automobiles, safety technologies are pushing up prices and being traded for fuel efficiency, both to a pretty significant extent.

So... gunz...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com