This is why we have Rule of Law. There is no "we follow the law when it seems reasonable". Whatever the law is, it should be followed, and it does not matter at all what anyone's personal opinion is regarding what the law should be.
Perhaps it is more complex than this, for example in cases of civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience is for cases of conscience when you cannot personally participate in something that is immoral, so you refuse to participate or you protest it. The key here is that this is ignoring the law to resist immoral uses of power, not ignoring the law to remove intentional restrictions to the application of allocated authority.
This applies doubly to the legal system itself. An appeal to the inability of legislatures to "get things done" has been the argument of every tyrant since Caesar.
I was suggesting following the rule of law. Congress passes laws when they get around to it. I'm not in any way advancing that we should ban encryption or support backdoors (effectively banning encryption). I will not however pretend that I have exhaustively considered all legislation that would allow the FBI to open this phone without setting dangerous precedents.
I can't think of any at the moment but I don't think anyone in a position to do anything with an answer is trying. The issue is too good a political bludgeon to bother even seeking some creative solution to the problem (again, not that I am 100% sure there even is a legislative solution that wouldn't be a vastly undesirable and possibly unconstitutional blow to encryption).
It is not a good starting presumption that no reasonable answer can be reached, especially when the topic under discussion isn't a core issue like "backdoor all encryption" but rather "is it possible to pass reasonable and generally acceptable legislation such that Apple can legally be compelled to aid this decryption effort without setting a terrible precedent?" There may be no solution to that problem, which is fine, but don't suggest that I was endorsing some vaguely Orwellian shit because I don't presume as a given that our opponents on the general issue of encryption have malicious aspirations of tyranny.
It's not vaguely Orwellian. Given an ability to disregard the rule of law, and sufficient charisma, and some hard times, any country can become a dictatorship in 5 years.
We can't kill every charismatic person, and we can't prevent hard times. We can insist on the rule of law.
I suggested that a disagreement might have a non-specified solution a) exists and b) would be achievable through legislation, passed by an elected legislature. Nothing I suggested requires killing charismatic people (?) or advocates against the rule of law.
Normally when people intentionally misread me in the most uncharitable fashion possible I can at least see the deranged logic, but in your case I can't see what evil you claim I am advancing or how you arrived at that conclusion.
I understand your clarification, I was nitpicking that you were saying my response to the original comment was 'crazy' or something, but without the context you gave in your reply I think my original response was appropriate.
I agree with your larger point, there is probably a workable solution that balances the threat of government with the benefits of government, but I disagree that it is 'not getting things done' that is the cause of us not finding that compromise.
In general, I think that appeals to 'a lack of will' are almost always incorrect. People, even politicians, are generally good and want to find good solutions. There is a lot of disagreement on what is a good solution, and even more disagreement on what the long term consequences of choices are. This is why there is gridlock, and if you read the Federalist Papers (in the case of the US), you will see that this gridlock is a Feature of the system, not a Bug.
Every time I hear someone defend the recent state of affairs by bringing up the gridlock being a feature and not a bug, I feel like someone who owns a delivery truck that won't go more than 10 mph. I go to the dealer and ask what the fuck, and the dealer says that there's a speed governor on the truck that won't let it surpass 80mph and the governor is just working better than usual.
Reasonable according to whom? And Congress passed a ton of stuff last year, it's not like it is totally deadlocked.
The FBI would love a federal law that forces Apple to crack phones for them. Since they don't have one, they are trying to get a court to invent one by stretching the All Writs Act.
I think that was his point. If he can't pass a law through the People's representatives, then he shouldn't be using mental gymnastics with one of US's oldest laws in existence to force a company to hack its own device...
And no, "Congress gridlock" is not a good response to abusing existing laws.
This is why we have Rule of Law. There is no "we follow the law when it seems reasonable". Whatever the law is, it should be followed, and it does not matter at all what anyone's personal opinion is regarding what the law should be.
Perhaps it is more complex than this, for example in cases of civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience is for cases of conscience when you cannot personally participate in something that is immoral, so you refuse to participate or you protest it. The key here is that this is ignoring the law to resist immoral uses of power, not ignoring the law to remove intentional restrictions to the application of allocated authority.
This applies doubly to the legal system itself. An appeal to the inability of legislatures to "get things done" has been the argument of every tyrant since Caesar.