Notice how the headline makes sure to specify "over terrorist's phone" and not "over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI."
Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI.
The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helping.
Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I think it's actually disingenuous to mention the word "terrorist" in the headline at all. Nothing about why Apple is resisting (which is the crux of this news cycle) has to do with the fact that they are, bizarrely, fighting for this (dead) user (who is undeniably a madman murderer and potentially a terrorist)'s right to privacy.
Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and everyone here in the comments isn't defending this person's right to privacy. It's 100% about the principle and the precedent and it's a million times about the future users and nothing to do with this horrible person. For that reason, it's unfair (in fact, you could call it purposeful misrepresentation) to say that they are against the FBI unlocking "terrorist's phone" or defending the "terrorist's privacy" in any way. What they are doing, if one excludes self-interest, is protecting the principle for everyone else out there.
I disagree. "Terrorist's Phone" is simply the most efficient way to identify the case. "User's Privacy" would mean absolutely nothing to someone who hasn't heard of the case as much as we have, especially considering most of Apple's marketing nowadays is through that lens…
> The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor.
If you'll allow me to be pedantic, they could have; we can be pretty sure this phone has none of the evidence they want it to, and it's not like anyone at Apple will lose sleep feeling responsible for aiding terrorism.
But my point is, this is simply the headline that will get the most clicks. Any political bias in it is coincidental. (And of course, it seems reasonable for most people to agree that, in a vacuum, it would be OK for Apple to unlock the phone, as long as it never affected other users.)
I'm not sure that it's easy to dismiss political bias as coincidental given that the people publishing the article are professional wordsmiths who understand the impact of every word they choose.
"...around user privacy." Boring. No one will click that.
"...against federal conscription." Sounds like a conspiracy rag.
"...terrorist phone." Interesting! Let's click.
As someone that used to work as a "professional wordsmith," I think you vastly overestimate how much they care. Does it work? Do I hit my SEO metrics? Can I go to lunch now? And remember, headline writers often aren't the people who write the articles, and may not be people who have READ the articles.
Why not just "phone"? Terrorism shouldn't have anything to do with the case. I don't believe the fourth amendment makes a special provision for terrorists or other "scary" people. For a good reason—terrorism is a polemic term.
If efficiency and pedantic(s) are going to be invoked, wouldn't it be easier to have the headline read, "unlock phones," since it turns out that Apple is currently dealing with multiple requests from GOV?
Also that this is an order under the All Writs Act and not a search warrant. If I had a nickel for every time this is described in the press as Apple resisting a "warrant" or a "subpoena" I'd be able to make a seven figure donation to the EFF!
It wouldn't make any sense for Apple to challenge the warrant--the government isn't searching its property.
The media is reporting this correctly: they're noting that the government is acting pursuant to a warrant to clarify that they're not asking Apple to assist with a warrant-less search.
The All Writs Act is what gives the government the authority to issue a warrant. This is the tactic of the government to obscure what is really relevant by mentioning a law that nobody will recognize which is nothing more than the authority to issue a warrant.
I was about to post that that is disingenuous and that they are backing apple due to the case at hand, which a software person knows relates to the intrusion matter at large, but... the majority of the population only cares about headlines and political platitudes that they can obtain in 10 seconds or less. "TLDR" is not just a meme, but a sad reality.
[edit] As in some might interpret this to be: "Wow the headline says Microsoft supports Terrorism too!!!" instead of appreciating that the request has much farther reaching implications.
Those aren't neutral headlines either. The first presupposes that Apple's assistance with this specific phone will endanger all users' privacy. The second characterizes what is in most cases routine cooperation with legal process as "conscription."
Sure the case isn't perfect, but is it ever going to be, given that the government can choose it?
The details of this case, however, aren't too detrimental. Basically, a couple buys guns, goes next door and starts shooting. It's then a terrorism case, because... well their name sounds arabic and possibly the guy visited some internet pages.
For me, this case only demonstrates that if you make guns available for purchase in every supermarket, chances are that one day a mental person wakes up, buys one and just starts shooting. And there's really not very much you can do about that. But there isn't a smoking gun hidden here that would somehow make a strong emotional argument towards compelling Apple to decrypt the phone of a dead guy.
At least it is Apple the press is attacking, they can survive this.
Any other company would be torn to shreds by the purposeful fear-mongering the press does because of the clicks and eyeballs it generates.
I am "pleased" to see Apple's lawyers arguing against conscription though. It was exactly my thought the first time I heard about this and Apple being ordered to create something that didn't exist before, exclusively for the government. Kind of matches that 270 year old law the FBI is trying to use.
As long as laws are not absolute truth, and are written by misguided representatives, and representatives are intimidated by the possibility to lose their power, and fear can be generated through misinformation, when it comes to freedom of speech and thinking, we are all domestic terrorists by "definition" [1].
Thanks for citing. You've mis-interpreted the cite. Here's what it says. Notice domestic terrorism requires all three characteristics, not just one, and the first is "Involve acts dangerous to human life...."
So you have to start by doing something dangerous to human life. Like cut down a tree, or give someone a glass of water, or sell them a ski pass.
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
The case is very much a about a phone. The case has implications for other phones, but the most direct point is about hacking one specific terrorist's phone.
Thank. I must admit I thought the original title a little inflammatory. The key point is the amicus brief supporting Apple, which in hindsight should have formed the title.
> I thought the original title a little inflammatory
In that case it's good to change it. From the guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." Inflammatory is usually linkbait.
When changing a title to make it more accurate or neutral, it's best to use a subtitle or a representative phrase from the article.
To some extent. Some of us like to keep in mind that we've simultaneously realized Huxley's Brave New World in many respects--especially with the advent of smartphones, and the work we technologists do to keep people entertainingly distracted.
“Alleged insurgent” is a terrible description for “some crazy couple with guns”. They clearly weren’t part of any serious organized rebellion against the state (cf. any dictionary definition of “insurgent”), however much they had been inspired by ISIS or whatever.
No it wouldn't be better. 'user' would be better. That's literally what OP wrote. OP would like terrorist not mentioned in the headline. Why isn't that obvious to you?
Well, "over terrorist's phone" is enough to tell me which issue it is referring to. "Over user privacy" or "against federal conscription by the FBI" would not, and honestly feel more editorialized.
Anyone that has seen the case would know what its talking about. Anyone that hasn't can read the article. "over phone unlocking" is a more descriptive title for the case.
Take a second and re-read the headline. What does it say? To me, it spells out Microsoft joins Apple to back terrorist's privacy against the FBI.
The government couldn't have chosen a better case to publicize in search of a precedent in their favor. And the media isn't helping.
Edit: In case it wasn't clear, I think it's actually disingenuous to mention the word "terrorist" in the headline at all. Nothing about why Apple is resisting (which is the crux of this news cycle) has to do with the fact that they are, bizarrely, fighting for this (dead) user (who is undeniably a madman murderer and potentially a terrorist)'s right to privacy.
Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, and everyone here in the comments isn't defending this person's right to privacy. It's 100% about the principle and the precedent and it's a million times about the future users and nothing to do with this horrible person. For that reason, it's unfair (in fact, you could call it purposeful misrepresentation) to say that they are against the FBI unlocking "terrorist's phone" or defending the "terrorist's privacy" in any way. What they are doing, if one excludes self-interest, is protecting the principle for everyone else out there.