Except the American People also gave him the job to following any and every possible lead.
There is a fundamental conflict with how law enforcement and intelligence does it's job and the way people communicate today. Period.
If people want more secure communications they are going to have to tell the FBI in no uncertain terms "we are ok with you dropping leads."
Apparently in this specific case that has happened as a mother of the slain said:
“This is what separates us from communism, isn’t it? The fact we have the right to privacy,” Adams said to the Post. “This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote.”
Now, is it up to this mother to make that case? Yea, if the director is to be listened to. After all that is who he invokes when appealing his reasoning. So based on this statement it seems like they should back off, say shit happens, lets mourn our dead and move on.
We need more of the victims to speak out and tell investigations their true thoughts.
>So based on this statement it seems like they should back off, say shit happens, lets mourn our dead and move on.
Agreed. It's not like the investigators are totally in the dark here, either.
In addition to the rest of the FBI investigation, given the terrorist/national security nature of the case, it's likely that anything the shooters did online during the past few years was pulled and analyzed—including internet history, e-mail, chat and phone conversations—rendering a pretty good picture of both their interests and associations.
If the FBI didn't do this (they can if it's a national security case), then the intelligence community certainly did.
There should be more discussion. Tech companies should seek to understand the government's job to keep people safe, and the government needs to understand that this is a game of whack-a-mole they can't win
> Forcing him how? If he came back with nothing, that's his answer.
It's amazing how many people don't get this. The Congress makes laws, which are the tools at the FBI's disposal. If they didn't give them this particular tool, then too bad: they have to figure out how to do their job without this tool.
And the DFBI did not address the gross incompetence shown by them, when they asked the County to reset the phone. If they didn't even know the consequences of that request, how can they predict the (supposed no) consequences of their request to Apple?
There is a fundamental conflict with how law enforcement and intelligence does it's job and the way people communicate today. Period.
If people want more secure communications they are going to have to tell the FBI in no uncertain terms "we are ok with you dropping leads."
Apparently in this specific case that has happened as a mother of the slain said:
“This is what separates us from communism, isn’t it? The fact we have the right to privacy,” Adams said to the Post. “This is what makes America great to begin with, that we abide by a constitution that gives us the right of privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to vote.”
Now, is it up to this mother to make that case? Yea, if the director is to be listened to. After all that is who he invokes when appealing his reasoning. So based on this statement it seems like they should back off, say shit happens, lets mourn our dead and move on.
We need more of the victims to speak out and tell investigations their true thoughts.
[1]http://fortune.com/2016/02/19/victim-apple-fbi/