riveting with excitement.
“Technology companies should not be able to dictate who can access key evidence in criminal investigations,” Vance said in this written testimony. “No device or company, no matter how popular, should be able to exempt itself from court obligations unilaterally.”
Vance has it backwards. No government agency should be able to dictate to a tech company to write code to subvert its own security (and authorized auto-update, i.e. “push”) process. Why can’t Vance secure a warrant to compel the accused drug dealer to provide his password? If a judge agrees that it’s reasonable, then the accused can either comply or sit in jail.
Can someone explain why NY (Vance) cannot pursue that path & instead resorts to castigating the manufacturer?
In this case, of course, the accused is already dead, but they aren’t worried about the fish they’ve caught. Instead they’re trying to drum up evidence on all the other fish in the sea.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
