The FBI Is Wrong: Apple’s Encryption Is in the Public Interest
The point that James Comey was trying to make is that we don't want to live in a world without warrants. The prosecution in a criminal case has the burden of proof. It's difficult to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt if key evidence is encrypted and cannot be retrieved, even with a lawful warrant. This means that more criminals who are legitimately guilty will walk, which means that all of us will be less safe. The entire system is built around the idea that law enforcement can search and seize evidence if they have a lawful warrant from a duly appointed judge. Unbreakable encryption fundamentally threatens that framework.<p>An example the FBI used is a stupid criminal kidnapping a child and leaving their encrypted phone behind somewhere. Even if the FBI got warrants from multiple respected judges, they couldn't go through that phone to look for clues about where kidnapper may have taken the child. There are ticking bomb scenarios and other time sensitive situations. It's reasonable that the law enforcement should have some ability to access information with approval from the judiciary. We don't want to endanger ourselves in order to protect the banal communications on our cell phones or dissemble our legal system for the sake of keeping our sexting private.