pursuant to a lawfully obtained search warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The government has a right to DNA test criminal suspects, open up all of their financial records, look through their personal computers, their cable bills, the x-rated films they rent while staying in hotels, and get access to their safe deposit boxes. If there's a warrant.

because of an attempt to access information and evidence pursuant to due process of law

. . . is a very dangerous one, with potentially profound consequences for the country.

the 4th amendment says reasonable searches and seizures

we are not talking about cracking a phone for jaywalking offenses or failure to pay student loans, we're talking about accessing evidence found in the possession of a suspected terrorist.

if policehave the right to go through his home, and his email, and his bank records, and his credit history, and his mail, and every single item in his possession, why not his phone?

. . . it was a court order to a third party to develop software to carry out the search warrant.

Not just this dead terrorist. That is what the fight is about. Also once Apple creates this backdoor any hacker will be able to access any I-phone.

I don't think this comes even close to violating their rights.

what we ave here is one of those slippery slope arguments and it concerns all iphones and demands eventually being made by other countries and security agencies. Don't forget, there has been a protracted argument about the tech corps creating a "back door" entry to encryption, tech world has declined to do so thus far. What they are being told to do here is to create that software, it won't be for just one phone, it will provide access to them all. And we all know how secure the world of the interwebs works, once anything gets on the web, it gets exploited for nefarious purposes... so if Apple were to comply and the access to unlock all iphones got out into the netherwebs, gosh what could go wrong?

I prefer my privacy, what's left of it.

they will not stop at one single suspect. The ability WILL be abused.

Please note that a "secret warrant" is not a real warrant and a "secret court" is not a real court.

at the same time, other than Ron Paul there isn't a candidate for president out there who wouldn't seek the contents of an international terrorist's cell phone.

do you really think Bernie Sanders would say in a general election "I think the government should not do everything it can under the constitution to investigate and prevent terrorist attacks and networks?"

and focus on those who care about the people

. . . but most of us know better.

I never said, nor insinuated, any such thing. This is not conspiracy mongering. There are privacy concerns at issue here that affect millions of people. The notion that those concerns should be swept aside in favor of law enforcement's need to collect evidence is, or should be, profoundly disturbing to anyone who cares at all about civil liberties.

(Cowardly hit and run, btw.)

. . . but insinuating that people who disagree with you are "lost in paranoid dreams" is simply vile.

it will be universally applied ASAP.

C;mon, you can do some better hyperbole than that.

He's been doing his damndest to throw whistleblowers in jail and keep allowing Americans to be spied upon for 7+ years now.

Fuck apple. biggest example of corporate greed on the planet and people worship them it sickens me.

Obama is the devil because he disagrees with Apple.

What a crock of shit.

Would any president, once elected and faced with the daily responsibility of keeping America safe in today's world, choose differently?

Bernie might. But I would be surprised. There's no doubt for any of the other candidates (expect maybe Rand Paul or whomever the Libertarian candidate is).

we should be able to hack into their phone. I mean, that's why this doesn't seem like a real good test case to me, because it's pretty black and white.

If on the other hand, someone is arrested on 'suspicion' and put in some little cell forever like our government can now do, sans any due process, then no, they should not be permitted to hack the phone.

All this boils down to the fundamental question:

"How much of your freedom and civil rights are you willing to give up in order to be 'safe?'"

I'm not willing to give up that much.

I see we are recycling the Obama is so evil talking points.