The FBI, San Bernardino County District Attorney, the local Police Department and all their highly-placed politician supporters have never been able to provide a very compelling argument for why a specific iPhone 5c owned by a terrorist needs to be decrypted.
Until Friday, that is, when San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan made a fairly solid case for the unlocking of the device for the sake of clarity. Clarity regarding the number of December 2, 2015 assailants.
According to Burguan, “the majority” of surviving witnesses testified to seeing or hearing only two Inland Regional Center attackers, both of which were cornered and killed by the authorities. But there were also eyewitnesses “that said they thought they saw three” armed aggressors, and while there’s no hard evidence to back the theory, investigators have “never been able to completely eliminate it” either.
Obviously, if there was a third shooter, he or she is still at large now, and the father of a man murdered in the terror attack pleads for the same leave-no-stone-unturned investigation method. Mark Sandefur wrote directly to Apple CEO Tim Cook, asking him three chilling questions. “What if there is evidence pointing to a third shooter? What if it leads to an unknown terrorist cell? What if others are attacked, and you and I did nothing to prevent it?”
Forget bogus “dormant cyber pathogens”, these are the things prosecutors should be focusing on, arguing the greater good is on their side, not on the side of device encryption protection. What do you think, could Apple be on the verge of cracking here? Will lawmakers ultimately side with law enforcement or data privacy advocates?
Source: New York Post