<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); ">It is amusing that the law in question was drafted over two hundred years ago. </span>For the courts this is a good opportunity to interpret the limits within which law enforcement can operate.</div><div><br>--<div>keybase.io/kipyegonmark</div></div><div><br>On 22 Feb 2016, at 11:11, "Dennis Kioko" <<a href="mailto:dmbuvi@gmail.com">dmbuvi@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Being in Apple's position, I initially would have complied with the FBI's request, seeing that this measure would only be limited to one device. <div><br></div><div>However, after looking at Apple's response, I see what Tim Cook is coming from. That single piece of software would be hard to keep tabs on - the stakes would be very high. There many other institutions and countries(regimes) that would like to get their hand on such software. </div><div><br></div><div>In the past, US firms and Government Agencies have found out they have been hacked well after hackers had penetrated their computers. </div><div><br></div><div>Once out of control of both Apple and the FBI, the software would mean any iPhone in the "wild" would be susceptible to unauthorised access by however who has access to this "God" version of iOS. </div><div><br></div><div>Sounds like one of those movies where a disease or modified organism escapes from a lab. </div><div><br></div><div>What would you do were you the judge in this case? <br><br>On Monday, 22 February 2016, Mark Kipyegon via kictanet <<a href="mailto:kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke">kictanet@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">It might be worth noting that recent history shows law enforcement agencies abuse their power to access such controlled information.<br>
<br>
Edward Snowden (@Snowden) Tweeted at 7:50 a.m. - 17 Feb 2016 :<br>
<br>
The @FBI is creating a world where citizens rely on #Apple to defend their rights, rather than the other way around.<br>
(<a href="https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/699984388067557376?s=17</a>)<br>
<br>
--<br>
<a href="http://keybase.io/kipyegonmark" target="_blank">keybase.io/kipyegonmark</a><br>
<br>
On 21 Feb 2016, at 21:33, <a href="javascript:;" onclick="_e(event, 'cvml', 'kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke')">kictanet-request@lists.kictanet.or.ke</a> wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> However, I think the security agencies should have access to targeted information as investigations lead them - with the oversight of legislature and judiciary. The problem is how to ensure this is not misused to collect any information they think they need about a society. Self censorship, fear and basically ?guilty by default? will be the order of the day and you really don?t want to go down that road.<br>
><br></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>